100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Censorship
Edited by
wiley
on
Wed 04/01/09 08:40 AM
|
|
Gee call me unreasonable but I don't think books should be pulled from libraries just because some parents are too damned lazy to effectively parent. Neither do I. I think they should be following the American Library Association's Bill of Rights: Library Bill of Rights The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. Adopted June 18, 1948, by the ALA Council; amended February 2, 1961; amended June 28, 1967; amended January 23, 1980; inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 24, 1996. A history of the Library Bill of Rights is found in the latest edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual. http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cfm They are after all publicly owned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya know what wiley???? Im a good person.........and people **** on you because of it because its not what you know its who you know and who likes you. Yep. And I thought the clique mentality bull**** died with high school. Imagine my surprise when I run into the same **** when I start working...  Been there. Done that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People suck. Don't give them the satisfaction of thinking they got the better of you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya know what wiley???? Im a good person.........and people **** on you because of it because its not what you know its who you know and who likes you. Yep. And I thought the clique mentality bull**** died with high school. Imagine my surprise when I run into the same **** when I start working...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the reasons why I hate practically everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re-hi. Or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have an idea. It involves coconuts and lots and lots of alcohol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In July, Bush signed legislation re-authorizing the program and authorizing up to $48 billion to expand it. And we have no problem with giving $48 billion dollars to help another country when we cut funding in the US and we are the leading country to discover treatments and research? In our economy. 48 billion sure would help the american people who are ill here and those who are losing their jobs. Merely a drop in the bucket when we already have a multi-hundred trillion dollar deficit that continues to climb. Don't worry though. I'm sure if we just keep throwing money at it, it'll go away. Eventually. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The government is the administrator of whatever society it exists in. It is the brain of the body. You cant have a society without a government. And no one individual gets to cherry pick where their tax dollars are spent. That is unheard of and a recipe for social destruction. Individuals cherry pick where tax dollars are spent all the time. Read an appropriations bill some time. You'd be amazed where most of the money goes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been thinking a lot about the current economical crisis lately, not because it exists or how could it exist (I knew years ago we were going to be in debt, I'm good with numbers)...but moreso how throwing more money into already existing debt is going to fix the debt? It isn't. It is easier though then pushing accountability and responsibility. Besides, it gives the government another reason to raise taxes. They can never say no to that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement. This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy. For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. No, because they still live in this society. If a person doesn't wish to pay taxes to this society (that we all live in)then they can simply find another society to live in. We're not paying taxes to this society. We're funding the government. If my taxes were being spent locally and benefiting me directly, I wouldn't have a problem with paying them. As it is, my taxes mainly go to benefit programs that have nothing to do with me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement. This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. Im not sure how that was a good thing only allowing people who own land to vote. There are a variety of reasons why someone would not own property (besides being poor)and our predeccesors had good reasons for overturning that rule. For one thing, it overly favors the wealthy. For one thing, back then, the landowners were the only ones paying taxes. You are right that today voting should not be limited to land owners. I think however that it can be fairly said that voting should be limited to taxpayers. And if you want to give up your vote, you should be able to waive paying taxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of the Smokies, it created a very large and important watershed and wildlife conservation area. Im sure if you had lived in one of the many communities that were there at the time you did not see it that way. But that is what it did and it made life better for a lot more people than it pissed off! And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree. Not just me. Millions!!!  Sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean eminent domain is a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of the Smokies, it created a very large and important watershed and wildlife conservation area. Im sure if you had lived in one of the many communities that were there at the time you did not see it that way. But that is what it did and it made life better for a lot more people than it pissed off! And for you obviously the ends justified the means. Again, I disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. And yes, this isn't supposed to be a democracy (mob rule), this supposed to be a republic. We arn't going to go back to only letting white men with land have any rights. (Im not saying thats what you want to do). I mean that as a general statement. This was a good thing. Not in that only white men could vote. But in that only those having something to lose, could vote. White/Nonwhite was clearly against the spirit of freedom end equality. I know, I know, voting on how to split the fruit while done nothing to grow it, seems like a logical thing and a right, these days. While I will surely be trumped by the dumb-witted crowds for saying this, I will still be right in saying that until this is reversed, there will be no economy other than fakeonomy in USA. I agree with you. Those who have nothing at stake shouldn't have a say in what happens to other people's. This is how we end up giving tax "refunds" to people who never pay taxes in the first place, among other things. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but it is usually done for the betterment of the whole! Yes. That argument is very popular among communists. Of course, we seem to be heading in that direction more and more every day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. Eminent domain and the Patriot Act pretty much killed both of those. That can be changed. Good luck with that. Eminent domain was the result of a SCOTUS ruling. If by no other means than by voting out the idiots who imposed it! We don't vote for the Supreme Court justices. They're appointed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a system of politics where the majority rules. No we don't. This is a republic, not a democracy. The minority clearly rules in some areas via the court system if nowhere else. You mean when the majority opinion does not coincide with the constitution Im sure, and overruns the rights protected by it by the constitution. No. I mean when a special interest group of the minority throws money at the government via lobbying and delays legislation by judicial fiat via the lower courts. I'm not referring to the SCOTUS or its decisions. It sucks when your wishes are those of the minority, but that doesn't mean you are without representation, or that the outcome on certain issues are unfair either. And if your wishes are those of the majority and they are still overturned? What then? Regroup, protest, and try to get more support. If you're already in the majority how is getting more support going to make a difference? Unless the issue tramples the rights of the minority as protected by the constitution. Again, not talking about SCOTUS or its decisions. The government has been influenced by lobbyists for decades. So have the courts. Sometimes we have to take our lumps and learn to deal with them. That's pretty unAmerican. We're all about bucking the system, when its appropriate. Do you think there is any group of Americans who have never recieved a few lumps? Sure. Most of them are still in office. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point at the foundation of America was, that the property and rights can not be voted away. Eminent domain and the Patriot Act pretty much killed both of those. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Censorship
|
|
I agree.
However, it is the right of any person in a privately owned establishment to censor whatever they wish, if they so choose. The first amendment only applies to censorship by the US government. Nowhere else. Nor should it. There are plenty of things we shield our children from, for good reason. Are you suggesting that we stop that now because censorship is bad? I think there is a time and place for everything, censorship included. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
