Palin is another Jesus Freak

[strandinthewind]

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



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/

[SuzeQuze]

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.

[ajmccarrell]

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?

[BombaySapphire3]

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

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.

Throwing out labels is no substitute for having a position.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

She simply asked the question and was told she couldn't, so she let it go.

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

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

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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?

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?

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

:

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

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

[strandinthewind]

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

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

Come on Strand I think you're better than this. We all have our different points of views, and I enjoy the debates and some of the jabs. But there is so much hate on this board. This thread and the "Palin Racist" thread are prime examples of the extreme hate shown towards Conservatives and Christians.

I hope we can all debate or poke fun at others we disagree (or agree with for that matter), but maybe do it with a little less hatred.

My 2 cents.

[strandinthewind]

Nah - called it as I saw it.

She reminds me of the hypocritical self righteous and I cannot stand.

Also, it seems to me that you are confusing the hatred of religion with religion out of politics. Saying the govt. does not have any business in religion in no way lessens anyones' individual right to practice their religion. Many confuse this point.

In the end though, if you were persecuted and in some instances killed in the name of a twisted version of God, you might have a different take on religion in politics. So, I get why people hate religion.

Finally, I likely am way more conservative than anyone on this board. But, because I want religion nowhere in govt., I do not fit into the neocon version of conservative.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

What is the analogy here?

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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!

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 But, you are, as usual, playing bait and switch when you cannot win the main and only point.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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!

No one is trying to censor Palin.

[mylittledemon]

I find it disturbing that we live in a nation that is supposed to be about "freedom of religion" and yet, it's viewed as a weakness to believe in God and to publicly say so. How many of us would mock a child when he or she says they believe in Santa Claus? Maybe Santa Claus IS real.

I for one don't want an agnostic or an atheist in public office. I don't believe that that belief falls in line with the majority of the American people. I would also add that the majority of Americans would agree on that point.

I also strongly believe that we shouldn't presume to know what the will of God is, unless he comes down to speak to you personally in front of lots of people. It's when you start using God as a means to your own gain (Whats that guy? Smiling Preacher Osteen?), to pass your own legislature (Ahem...Jessie Helms), or affect your law making decisions that this becomes a scarier issue.

I *think* I saw Palin on TV stressing the importance that she would never presume to say what the will of God IS. None of us can. But we do live in a nation where freedom of religion is being threatened by this idea that those who believe God is real are "freaks" or A-1 nutballs.

So what if God is real? Sit and ponder on that thought for a moment. What if God IS real and everything that you fight so strongly against believing is actually real. Maybe you choose not to believe because of what happened to you in your past. How can a loving God allow so much suffering and war to take place? Now, here we've come full circle...none of us can presume to know the will of God is. We may never get those answers in this life. But maybe you can presume to know what the will of God is for your own life. And there's nothing wrong with believing in that.

I went a bit off topic there...I know the original topic was Palin. I'm not necessarily supporting her, just her right to believe what she wants to.