Palin is another Jesus Freak
 

Just what we need (rolls eyes) That McCain is actually trying to defend this bullshiitte speaks volumes to the lengths he will lie to get the WH. Haven't we had enough of the R lies from W?

Moreover, that the American people are dumb enough not to see this for what it is is even more frightening.

To put it plainly, why would a political official even ask in the first place how a librarian would react, even, hypothetically, to the banning of a book? The answer of any politician I want would be "we do not ban books." <<<<<< and that's a period

:shrug:

McCain Camp Defends Palin Book-Banning Questions

by Associated PressFriday, September 12, 2008

The McCain campaign is defending Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s much-criticized questions to her hometown librarian about book banning, saying the query was only hypothetical.

Shortly after taking office in 1996 as mayor of Wasilla, a city of about 7,000 people, Palin asked the city’s head librarian about banning books. Later, the librarian was notified by Palin that she was being fired, although Palin backed off under pressure.

Palin’s alleged attempt at book-banning has been a matter of intense interest since Republican presidential nominee John McCain named her as his running mate last month.

Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said Thursday that Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, on three occasions how she would react to attempts at banning books. He said the questions, in the fall of 1996, were hypothetical and entirely appropriate. He said a patron had asked the library to remove a title the year before and the mayor wanted to understand how such disputes were handled.

Records on the city’s Web site, however, do not show any books were challenged in Wasilla in the 10 years before Palin took office.

Palin notified Emmons she would be fired in January 1997 because the mayor didn’t feel she had the librarian’s “full support.” Emmons was reinstated the next day after public outcry, according to newspaper reports at the time.

Still, one longtime library staffer recalls that the run-in made everyone fear for their jobs.

“Mayor Palin gave us some terrible moments and some rather gut-wrenching moments, particularly when Mary Ellen said she was going to have to leave,” said Cathy Petrie, who managed the children’s collection at the time.

Recent outrage has been fueled by Wasilla housewife Anne Kilkenny, whose 2,400-word critique of Palin’s legacy as mayor is widely posted on the Internet. Kilkenny described Palin’s actions as “out-and-out censorship.”

But the McCain campaign, in a statement, said the charge “is categorically false … Governor Sarah Palin has never asked anyone to ban a book, period.”

Emmons, a former Alaska Library Association president who now goes by Mary Ellen Baker, did not return calls seeking comment.

According to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman newspaper, Emmons did not mince words when Palin asked her “how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library” on Oct. 28, 1996, in a week when the mayor had asked department heads for letters of resignation.

“She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied ‘Yup’,” Emmons told a reporter. “And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too.”

The Rev. Howard Bess, a liberal Christian preacher in the nearby town of Palmer, said the church Palin and her family attended until 2002, the Wasilla Assembly of God, was pushing to remove his book from local bookstores.

Emmons told him that year that several copies of “Pastor I Am Gay” had disappeared from the library shelves, Bess said.

“Sarah brought pressure on the library about things she didn’t like,” Bess said. “To believe that my book was not targeted in this is a joke.” Other locals said the dust-up had been blown out of proportion.

“That was many years ago and Sarah never had any intention to ban books,” said David Chappel, who served as Palin’s deputy mayor for three years. “There were some vocal people in the minority, and it looks like they’re still out there.”

Jim Rettig, who heads the American Library Association based in Richmond, Virginia, suggested that lingering quarrel raises issues that are still relevant as librarians prepare to celebrate Banned Books Week later this month.

“Librarians are very committed to the principles of the First Amendment of the Constitution and that means we don’t allow one individual or a group of people to dictate what people can or cannot read,” he said. “Most librarians if they got that sort of a question would be curious as to what the intent of the questioner was.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09...nning-inquiry/

Wow a fair and balanced piece of journalism on foxnews? Interesting. It's obvious she had the intent to actually get rid of a book(s). Nice cover-up attempt, which people will likely believe.

She simply asked the question and was told she couldn't, so she let it go. It's not as if some of the posters here haven't tried to say that religion itself is wrong. So, what the hell is the difference?

This chick is certifiable ..she obviously has allowed her extreme religious views to influence her politics in the past and who is to say she won't do it again only in a far higher offiice.I had really hoped America was over this kind of medievalism.

Why would a mayor even ask that question?

And, your statment "so she let it go" is incorrect. She fired the librarian and then public outcry forced her to rescind that decision. So much for "simply asked the question."

That you are even attempting to defend this ****te is disappointing :rolleyes:

In the end, this c*nt is Falwell with a vagina.

Who gives a flying fukc what posters on here say? What does that have to do with what the person one step from the WH says about burning books? Why do you always try to change the focus from the issue at hand?

Now that is the truest, most succint cut through the BS. statement I have read on here in quite some time.:thumbsup:

Speaking of which, did you see McCain on The View today :eek:

I thought the audience was going to boo him when he said he would appoint strict constructionist judges to the USSC and that Roe was incorrectly decided.

In the end, if the USSC overturns Roe, the states will then be able to determine abortion rights on there own. The result will be that in NY you can get an abortion while in Colorado, you cannot (hypothetically). Moreover, the Fed. Govt. will never be able to acknowledge the "right to privacy" unless the Congress creates it. It is a completely unworkable system in that a doctor who performs an abortion in one state but lives in another could be tried for murder in the state in which he lives. That's just fukced up. So, the argument that the effect will be that the states dec. for themselves is, at best, a farce and anyone making it knows that or is short sighted fool.

The interesting thing is the R's were so gung ho to usurp Fla.'s soverign right to adjudicate spousal rights in the conext of Terri Schiavo that despite numerous state court rulings in favor of the former husband, the R Congress demanded essentially the same type of right be applied by the Fed. Ct.'s in that case - all in the name of the cash cow known to them as jesus. The true Jesus had nothing to do with it. But, activist courts are okay when it suits your reelection I guess and if you can make a little cash off of it, so be it :rolleyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

Personally, I am SICK of politicians and their use of "faith". I am SURE I will be hearing some religatarded BS from the Mighty Burning Shrub who is visiting this state todayto raise $$$$ for the Gas and Oil Party and their candidates the McCain-Burger and the Palin-tologist

Seems EACH political commercial shown on TV here in 'Bible Belt Central' has at least ONE mention of religion/faith - and the Demo-Gods are AS BAD as the Relig-publicans. Even the ads shown on Oklahoma TV for Obama bring up "his faith". Who gives a flying donkey **** about ones 'faith'? I don't...Some politicians RELIGIOUS (Zealot) views arent going to WIN my VOTE!!!

I abide by one of the two "Commandments" George "Cardinal Glick" Carlin mentioned in his skit about reducing the "10 commandments" down to the "2 Commandments":

"Keep thy religion to thyself"

Brian "Oral Roberts said he once saw a 60 foot tall Jesus in Tulsa, Oklahoma...yeah, keep taking your medication Oral, you religious asshole" j.

Religion should stay out of government. Period.

Everything I'm hearing & reading seems to imply that Palin "cleaned house" after she was elected governor. It's a fine line between putting together a good team of people to work together toward the common good and firing everyone who doesn't agree with you so you can hire your cronies.

I don't trust her. I don't agree with her views. I don't want her in office in any capacity.

What is the analogy here?

You complain about censorship of your views, but several times since I made my post, the rest of you wanted to censor Palin and her views, as well as mine. You guys are ridiculous. I mean, what is "religion should stay out of politics" if not censorship? LOL! You guys are as bad as you make her out to be. Good job! :thumbsup:

Throwing out labels is no substitute for having a position.

So, I guess you want to censor people who are for censorship. That makes a lot of sense. LOL! :shrug:

Do you actually listen to the tripe that comes out of your mouth when you make assinine points like this?

It's called the First Amendment and it prohibits the establishment of a state religion in any context. Therefore, while you and anyone else are free to spout whatever your individual views are without govt. interference (the other part of the First Amendment) -- but Plain cannot use her position as Mayor to coerce a public librarian to ban a religious book or any other book based on her religion - much less fire someone. This is not a difficult concept :shrug: But, you are, as usual, playing bait and switch when you cannot win the main and only point.

That's called federalism, where the states do not have a dictatorship of black robed judges. Again, you keep labelling people, IE "fool", etc without really addressing the merits of federalism. I'd support it wholeheartedly. If you want to be an abortion doctor, go to a state that allows it. If you hate abortion, go to a state that disallows it. I mean, you people clamor against people "shoving their views on you" but when an alternative compromise is given where states can choose for themselves, which is real democracy and not the oligarchic system under judges, you are against it. No one did anything in the name "of Jesus" here, McCain's view allowed for both sides to be happy without one or the other imposing their views on the other. Now THAT is "f*cked up" that you don't see that. I guess it's all your way or not at all, screw the rest of us.