It's not a cheap pot shot. Republicans have adopted an anti-gay platform. Just because a noble few of them aren't anti-gay doesn't mean that Republicans aren't typically anti-gay.

If this idiot lawmaker were the exception, that would be one thing. But he isn't. He's all too indicative of the current state of the Republican party, dominated by right-wing conservative evangelicals.

Can you do me a favor

Is there a difference?[/quote]

Not in this case. The suffix "phobia" here is not meant as an irrational fear but rather an irrational hatred or disdain.

I actually prefer to refer to them as anti-gay bigots. I think it's a more accurate term because they may or may not be motivated by fear or hate, but they are certainly against equal rights for homosexuals.

Nope, my response was that the issue of censoring certain books has absolutely nothing to do with the party allegiance.

Democrats and Republicans alike feel that it is up to them to figure out how to spend the public's money.

I would say there is ....

one could say that phobia of gay people implies you're uncomfortable and a little feraked out around gay people .... its something I notice in a lot of people ... not being comfortable lying down on a bed with a gay person .. stuff like that ... homophobic ...


unacceptance is well .. unacceptance. I do not accept people making fun of people's parents on the board but I'm not phobic about it. Same applies here. Many feel homosexuality is wrong .. dispise it but that doesnt mean theyre scared of it (unless ofcourse one refers to (and dare I say it) "Homosexuality spreading" )

But meh ..

btw, you're right .. theyre hating bigots or whatever you called them more than anything else ...

Banning books for not portraying gays in a negative way certainly DOES have to do with party affiliation. Was there ever any question that this guy was a Republican?

Book burning alive and well

That's the title of your thread. You were insinuating that only Republicans are proposing censoring the books.

Megamoze, or beeblebrox or if you prefer Zaphod

my point is:

A person next time claims to be a virgin until his marriage and a mention of him being christian. Most virgin people are also religious. You've automatically switched the topic from viriginity to religious teachings ...

Also, you are effectively implying that democrats are incapable of such acts, which is pretty untrue.

Well, why should that surprise me or anyone from that matter considering that it's coming from a country where Nazi thinking is not forbidden and organizations like NAMBLA can legally exist.

I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying that a lawmaker is advocating banning books because they depict homosexuals positively, and he is a Republican and that is indicative of Republicans today.

What's also noteworthy about this is that Republicans are the ones who pretend to be for freedom and patriotism and less government control over our lives.

I'd think you of all people would actually be a little upset over this instead of pointing out this rather vague counter-point that somehow Democrats also censor.

What the hell are you talking about?

Ok bad example.

A guy wants to ban books on gay, hes republicans and turning this into a republican bashing thing.

A non republican can be anti gay too. Your generalization leads one to believe that only republicans are capable of something like this.

This man is trying to pass this law not because hes a republicans because hes stupid.

Yes, you are. If you didn't want to be ambiguous, you wouldn't have posted a thread with such a title.

I don't hold any illusions about what the Republican Party is all about. I don't consider the Democrats to be any different on the issue of censoring books, though.

Why do you feel I should be upset? It is the public money being spent; my opinion is that the public then should decide what kind of books they want in their libraries. If the majority agrees with that lawmaker, then so be it. I wouldn't want to live in that community, but I also wouldn't want to tell them how to spend their money.

Isin't this the same thing? :wink:

well said!!

hmm ...

Touche.

Book burning IS alive and well. I didn't say that book burning by Republicans-only is alive and well.

The party affiliation has to do with WHAT is being censored. And again, was there ever any question that this guy was a Republican?



Neither you or Bama has provided any examples of this kind of egregious censorship. It's all well and good to say that Democrats aren't any different, but some facts would be nice.



And I can assume then that you will defend each and every decision made by our govt using this same pricniple?

If you want to frame it like that, then I agree with you. However, it didn't come off like that when I first read it.


Neither you or Bama has provided any examples of this kind of egregious censorship. It's all well and good to say that Democrats aren't any different, but some facts would be nice.[/quote]
Tipper Gore comes to mind.

Check out this chart: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksw ... 002003.pdf

[quote="Beeblebrox"]


And I can assume then that you will defend each and every decision made by our govt using this same pricniple?[/quote]What kind of a question is that?

All I'm saying is that you have to reserve the right for communities to have self-determination.

Now, if it was up to me, there wouldn't be libraries built using public money to begin with, so none of this would be an issue to begin with.

*pulls up chair*

I love the Krem/Mega debates, all feels right in the forum now...

One thing that I am going to agree with Krem on here is Tipper Gore. That woman seems to have no end of the things she is willing to and wants to ban.

Check out the last couple of pages on the netherlands thread. There is a debate in there as well :wink:

I have a front row seat there as well, and I have popcorn :wink:

Bah.

How much did you pay for it?

I want some royalties, damnit!

nice...where's your ticket stub! :evil:


*Points flashlight In Rippers direction