ParanoiA

Are you seriously pretending one is a moral code set and the other is not? You should really think for yourself sometime... I've stated over and over why the two are the same. They are the same because they are both subjective interpretations of appropriate content. Period. I don't care if 99% of the country agrees with its conclusion, it's still a subjective conclusion. I'm sorry if your mind just glosses over that and takes it for granted and you've tricked yourself into believing it's not a moral statement. It's not a slope, it's a straight drop. Those that advocate banning books for subjective reasons don't get to point fingers and accuse others of being oppressive for banning books for subjective reasons. Well they can, but we call them hypocrites.

It's a shitty personality type. For the life of me, I cannot figure out where any religiously driven person could get the idea that they are supposed to judge and reject people. What could you possibly observe in Jesus' behavior and message that would lead you to believe you're supposed to exclude folks?

That sounds like an accurate statement. It was all about strategy, that's for sure and the whole damn party loves it. We'll see how much they love it when Palin and Biden go toe to toe in the debates.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it would make the library a creepy place to send your kids by themselves. But then, that's in the context of a sexually disfunctional society. We're so scared of sexuallity that any liberation on any front gets saturated by the previously deprived. Just look at the internet...

Now there's an actual objective argument.

No, I meant your previous post. I thought your point was in reference to strategy - your OP seems to be all about strategy. You know better than that. I won't sign on to your two party system this round because strategy means nothing to me. Only honest, sincere problem solving interests me. Neither the democrats nor republicans have anyone for me. They're both a dog and pony show. The fact you ask this question proves you're interested in the strategy. You are part of the problem that you're bitching about. I would love to hear what they believe. Democrats have been such a reactionary party in recent times. They don't have a position on anything nor share their position on anything until they have to, when the issue demands attention. That's a politically safe maneuver. In contrast, the republicans have been spouting their opinions and positions for quite a while now, so they appear more convicted, focused, and confident. You can disagree with their reasoning, but no one is wondering what they stand for.

"Lord—Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will." - Barack Obama "Make me an instrument of your will"? You've got to be kidding me. No one is slamming the agent of same ole politics as usual for asking god to make him a freaking instrument? And he wants to run the country? Who? Him or god? Where's the democrat kool-aid stand? I must have passed it because I smell double standards. So we got one guy who asks an invisible man in the sky to make him his instrument. We have this other gal spouting Iraq as a mission of this same invisible man in the sky. And we're only talking about the gal? Oh how I enjoy watching the little partisans compete. What was that about nationalism again? Wasn't that dangerous because of the tendency for one to exonerate their side like a "fan" in the face of contradictory truth? Disclaimer: I mean no offense by the invisible man comments, it's simply what I personally believe and I feel it necessary to make my point to those who claim to believe similarly.

Again, I'm not for banning anything at all and I don't amend that statement with subjective moral exceptions like "typical free speech" and make believe it's not the same as Palin's moral exceptions. You are the same. You offer her, and those she represents, no choice, you offer everyone else variable mileage. It's all about what's considered obscene. You and her have a different code set and both of you are blatantly ignoring the other's right to choose when you support banning books. It's sad you can't tell the difference. Read up on nationalism again, there is a reason you are being hypocritical and aren't seeing it. Prove the fallacy. Don't do yet another Palin impression and just repeat it over and over again. Ok, ok. But clearly the desire to ban books is not bad according to several posters in here, yet everyone answered that is was. The poll is corrupted. Sorry. Because they see their value system being erroded. They think that the athiest movement, for lack of a better more accurate phrase, is threatening the morality of man. Similar to how we think that religion threatens the morality and advancement of man. And each side is responding by restricting the choice from the rest. Each side seems to think they have the correct point of view to legislate morality with. This is why it's perfectly fine for liberals to restrict my freedoms, while conservatives and religious folk are accused of controlling information, oppression and etc. It's entirely wrong for either side to restrict my freedoms for subjective, moral reasons. This is why I reject bascules argument about obscenity being an exception to "typical free speech" parameters. Bullshit, it's a subjective judgement. However, I'm being a hypocrite too actually. After all, I do see the sense in keeping my neighbor from constructing a biochemical weapon with grocery store products. I guess I too didn't answer the poll honestly. I can admit it, now that I see it.

Ok, well I thought strategy was the focus, sorry. I don't think she's qualified, at this point. Not necessarily based on her short governorship, but based on her in whole. People can get the experience and skill set without serving in office, but she doesn't demonstrate anything like that either.

I didn't have a problem with Charlie's performance at all. He was calm and tenacious. I just wish he'd do that with every one of them. I'd like to see him keep asking Barack if he ever questioned the hubris in assuming he was adequate for the presidency. But in this interview Sarah asked for a lot of it. She acted like a dumb blonde about the Bush doctrine. That bugged me. "I think what Bush tried to do...." - that wasn't the question bambi. She also would never answer yes or no. I can think of one question where that was perhaps justified, due to the potential liability to the country - but even then she should have just answered that it would be inappropriate for her to answer that question, similar to the Hillary response to specifics about Iran relations. So she repeats herself, with a little added venom. I'm not sure if she was trying to defy Charlie or if she was the manchurian candidate. I do appreciate essay answers to questions, especially on subject matter that's inherently dynamic, but it's aggrivating when she won't go on record. On the one hand, that suggests a repulsion to absolutism, which I've always thought turns out a more thoughtful human being, but it also suggests a flexible approach to principles which would seem antithetical for a job executing our constitution. She's going to have to do better than that if she hopes to hold her own with Biden.

I actually understand that. Hell, when you think about it, there's no way to offer every single book in print, so it's not like the library system isn't effectively banning most literary work anyway. But the qualifier needs to be added. I don't think one should run around saying banning books is wrong unless they really mean that. Instead, one should say banning books for reason "x" is wrong. Of course, that takes all of the *sting* out of stating 'So-and-so wants to ban books', when one has to actually expose their own book banning desires implicitly.

There's no slope there. You're either a hypocrite or you're not. If you want to ban books for ethical/moral code set "A" verses banning books for ethical/moral code set "B" you're still banning books per an ethical / moral code set, just like Palin. I'm not surprised. I think they were even trying to ban Harry Potter in the Kansas school libraries, or was it Oklahoma? I don't remember, but I do recall something about the "black magic" promoted in those books. I was speechless. I had a religious co-worker explain it all to me and I really couldn't think of anything to say that wouldn't offend him. So I offended him. Sorry, but I was kind of offended myself.

Yes, totally unacceptable. Of course, I'm not drawing any lines of my own here either, I wouldn't ban porn or any other kind of smut literature. So, any hypocrites in here or are we all in agreement that all literature should be available by the library without any judgement? And soon as you draw a line, you take a seat next to Palin.

Yeah, doing a bit of reading on the subject with all the links flying around here and I guess it was considered "implicit" backing by the federal government via the belief by the investors that despite the official line of no guarantees, the feds would never really let them fail.

As a matter of national security, I could probably go for that. I would like to see some slash and burn to fund it though. Every dollar going to the Manhattan Energy Project should be complimented by a dollar slashed from something else. There's a lot of "something else's" that could use slashing, which will tickle the republicans while the energy project would tickle the democrats and everybody lives happily ever after.

But I thought Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not gauranteed by the federal government? That's what invalidated my original connection to the Palin comment about being "too expensive for taxpayers", in that it was too big and expensive to be gauranteed by the federal government, or taxpayers.

Well I didn't really get the "sexist" part of the comment, even if Obama uttered this phrase to undermine her joke. What's sexist about calling someone a pig? Of course, we're doing the same thing the media does...we say how stupid it is for people to make a big deal out of it, while we particpate in making a big deal out of it. If I was Obama, I would say it again, and again, and again. And everytime someone wants an apology, I would tell them that I'm terribly sorry that they're an idiot.

I agree, only I wish Obama would basically tell them to stick it. She doesn't own the damn phrase. And besides, so what? So he used a lipstick analogy that involves a pig - she compared herself to a freaking dog. Pigs are smarter than dogs. What's the issue? Hell, Obama should say he simply thinks more highly of her than she does herself.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Because there's so much, only the mudslinging or sensationalism can cut through? That's certainly true and it reminds me of fast food commercials in that the food never looks like that. So what do we do? We stop trusting the pictures. We're still drawn to them, and the sight of cheese dripping off a whopper is hard to resist - but we scale down our expectation. Maybe society will start thinking of the media business as the business that it is - the information business. The one business that probably deserves the most scrutiny of any business of any kind in our country. Yet, it's treated almost opposite - well, until fox news came along. Then suddenly, the news deserved to be judged by more than just the conservative outcasts. For that reason, I love fox news. I don't know, you make a good point. All I can do is hope that maybe we'll wise up and scale down our expectations on sensationalism, let it roll off of us and focus on the meat and potatoes, but nothing we've observed would really suggest that will happen huh?

This is certainly how I've seen it. Although, I don't think it's a "coordinated" event by Hollywood, or the media, I just think it's the nature of their interests. They would never treat Palin like that if she were the democrat candidate, or more accurately, if she were not pro-life, pro-god, pro-drilling and etc - well fox news would, but the rest would give her the same fair shake they gave Hillary and Obama. They love minority status and they hate minorities that don't seem to appreciate the policies they feel led to the rise of minority candidates in our political process in the first place. Add in the pro-choice obsession and Palin fits the archetypal alter-ego of the democrat's vision of a woman candidate. Of course, Palin is a tactic, just like Biden. McCain was your experienced old guy on the republican ticket while Obama was the young blood promising change. Obama owned the spotlight. Obama added the old and wise to his VP ticket, and McCain just countered with the same balance, young blood promising change, albeit to a different tune and she has unexpectedly stolen the spotlight. This is very bad for the democrats. I don't know how bad, or if they'll come up with something to counter it, but I think they were counting on Obama exclusively representing youth, energy and change all the way to November. It was working until Obama started getting more specific and going on record. I liked his interview with Oreilly. He stood up to him, while outclassing him. Billy tried to inflate his chest and get loud and Obama would just deflate him with a gesture and regain control of the conversation - except when Billy would badger him before he could finish a sentence. Obama has earned the substance free label though. The dude really flowered up his language from the get go and has only become more and more specific over time. Now we're starting to nail down his positions. Before, we'd get responses about how all of his positions are "on his website" or "just look at his record" - research appeals. I didn't have to look up squat to know specifics on Hillary's positions, she was substance driven right out the gate. That's not to say one shouldn't do research, after all actions speak louder than words. But in terms of non-specifics in his speeches, rallies and the few interviews we'd see him on - he seemed to compliment the very nature of a legislator - opinions on easy things, base things, and then ambiguous beating around the bush on the tougher things that can polarize him. This is why I have more respect for executive experience, since they must take a stand one way or the other. They'll try to be equivocal as long as they can, but ultimately they must show their hand.

I would like someone to tell me how the republicans f*cked up with their VP pick. They love that pick. The base loves the pick. Republican women are motivated to the point they're boycotting Oprah, even if for illogical reasoning. And McCain's numbers and support is just going up and up. Where the hell are you getting the idea that any republican regrets that pick in the least? It's a great pick. That's why it's pissing you off so much. It's pissing all of the democrats off that wrote off Hillary too. Palin has stolen Obama's spotlight. That's the bottom line, and you and the rest of the democrats thought this was over and done with and now you're pissed about it. Also, repeating how Palin is not qualified doesn't make it true. She's more qualified than Obama, and I think has the only real executive experience out of everyone running for office, including my guy, Dr. Paul. Why do you think democracy isn't working? This wealth or overabundance of information sources is good for our process. Now we don't have ONE market monopolizing what we hear - that's the threat to democracy, controlling information. We're just all maneuvering and reacting to this chaotic atmosphere of information and we'll eventually figure it out. People are facing the reality that journalism can't be truly objective, by the nature of the beast, and so multiple information sources serve as a check on each other. Again, it may look a little chaotic right now, but it's definitely for the better.

Correct. Not sure why you're pointing out the obvious, but that's cool. That's fair. I think it was about rejecting the two party system since he endorsed three candidates, all of which were third party candidates, rather than a statement of character. So, I don't think he cared if Hitler was on stage. He was endorsing a third party voting message without reverance to those third party's ideologies (the Green Party and Nader's Party are practically the anti-thesis of Paul's platform). Yeah, I wish he'd speak out against them, but he won't. He refuses to counter groups that support him, and I guess here he's even giving support. I can understand if that bothers you, but it doesn't bother me.

So it's nature you're against. I can understand that, but you have to ask yourself why. If it's so natural for groups to allow the elite to run them, as it appears since all the groups are doing it, then who really is out of line with their thinking? I've often wondered how people can look at mankind, the animal kingdom, earth, all of this and somehow get the notion that violence is not necessary, or act surprised that we invest so much into it. There is nothing we can observe that would suggest anything different. Same with the natural plutocracy that seems to erupt in every government, no matter how it's designed. It seems reasonable that humans need this, they want it - that's why they allow it. I think it's unreasonable to indict and blacklist the planet of governments because of a natural urge to allow the elite to run us. Blame humans, not their constructs.

Damn, so now my guy is going down for guilt by association also? Surely you know it's about rejecting the two party system, not embracing the Green Party? http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gj4x1Ijw4MDlWEadWey5y9c0GlhgD9340JAG0 http://www.thestreet.com/story/10436693/1/ron-paul-dismisses-mccain-obama.html?puc=googlen&cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA I agree.

The thing I like about Pickens is that he isn't really telling me what I want to hear. I want to hear that tomorrow fully electric cars will be rolling off the line for under 20 grand. I want to hear that tomorrow wind and solar will power our electrical grid to power those electric cars. I want to hear that tomorrow they will start manufacturing all plastics without oil. But Pickens just won't tell me that. He's painting a humble picture on my dreamy desires. He's saying it's possible, but not on the scale and order I want. Kind of like space travel. We can all bitch and moan that it ought to be easy, but after several decades, we are dissappointed to find that space travel is going to be slow and incremental. It's that kind of...let down...to me. I think Pickens is giving me the realistic plan. It doesn't match the specs of my will and what I thought was possible, and seems more realistic because of it. Drill, Drill, Drill is what's being debated today - not alternative fuels. Nobody is debating alternative fuels - well maybe a few are still kicking it around, but the american public is done with the debate, I think. We want alternatives and the market has been given its nod and it's going to happen, regardless. And the sooner we get past this Drill Now initiative, the sooner we can resume exploring the alternative market. We need to be able to explore that market without an immediate "deadline". The infrastructure requirements and capital, technology, research and development all need to be thoughtful, not rushed. Like single women like to say, they're looking for Mr Right, not Mr Right iNow.