Kali-forniarrr

I feel sorry for the Scottish import. A Glasgow kiss must be quite appealing these days.

nethead

Wish I was a tiny bit as articulate as you, if I could karma you again I would.

pejpm1

Great argument.

She enquired about how to ban books. Thats all you need to know. She is also religious and is pro life. These two FACTS make her unfit to hold any kind of office. You are a fool who clearly would gladly hand all your rights to the government if asked. It is pathetic how you attempt to defend censorship with the argument of 'lol, i got bored'.

nethead

Hahaha love it.

cindyabs

Now wait a minute-IF someone holds views contrary to yours or mine, that is allowed!! What is NOT allowed is IF they let THEIR personal feelings overide the feelings OF THE MAJORITY and make decisions based on that and NOTHING else.

fatbrit

This "majority rules" thing is not really the way modern democracies work. It's more a case of the majority gets its way on most things eventually. And I think that's a good thing.

cindyabs

I do too- I did take Political Science in college along with a course called Revolution and the required Civics in High School.

I will not discount a person's capabilities if they hold opposing views to mine, simply another bullheaded POTUS and company we do not need.

Inflexibility is not the same as strength of character.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Modern republics are not supposed to be governed strictly by majority rule. Instead, we are supposed to have basic freedoms simply because we have them, and that no one has the right to take away unless there is a good reason to take them.

Some of the specifics are left to majority rule, but basic freedoms are protected regardless of what some blocs may want. Majority rule is often not enough to take away a right. Even if the majority wanted to reinstate slavery or take away the right to vote, for example, those changes would not be permitted.

When an overblown Pentecostal housefrau starts playing librarian, that's treading pretty closely to stomping on the intent of the First Amendment to protect communications and unpopular ideas. We really don't have any use for people in government who can't respect the intent of the Constitution.

fatbrit

But you fail to grasp that she was protecting us from paedophiles...or homos or terrorists or baby killers or devils or something.

Manc

Contraception for teens.

JoanL

Actually, she's only pro-life when it concerns a non-sentient bundle of cells inside a frightened, reluctant young woman. When it comes to a sentient being, who can't afford a decent lawyer and has been convicted of murder, she's pro-death. Oh, and of course, she's pro-death when it comes to shooting a moose for Sunday dinner. And she seems OK with the thousands of dead soldiers in a war that should never have been.

But then, when it comes to the Religious Right you'll always have hypocrisy. It is an essential ingredient, like eggs in an omelette.

another bloody yank

I understand what you mean about essential ingredients. Like bacon in a BLT or apples in apple pie.

Steerpike

Perfectly put! The pro-life/pro-death argument is so compelling yet rarely used.

cindyabs

I had said at the outset some pages back, that what bothered me the most out of all this was the book issue, because as RW says, that is treading on one of our basic rights. This current administration more than any other, has been performing a flamenco step all over the Bill of Rights and more of the same for the future- no.

JoanL

Yes, the book issue was bad - very bad - especially as she wanted the librarian sacked, who disagreed with book-banning.

It makes me remember how the Nazis burned books: one of them was the anti-war novel 'All Quiet on the Western Front'.