It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

McCain Camp Defends Palin Book-Banning Questions

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mabus325
 


Good topic. You should run with it and start a thread.




posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
reply to post by DarkStormCrow
 


I believe there are two Republicans and two Democrats leading the investigation and 3 votes were necessary to issue the subpoenas.

You have a good weekend too.


That may well be, but who were the four? Its not as simple as Republican vs Democrat in the Alaska State Senate. There are two Republican factions and one sides with the Dems, giving them a 15-5 majority (Palin and Republican Majority Leader Lyda Green do NOT see eye to eye on much of anything, as an example). In fact, the one Republican you cite, Charlie Huggins, is a member of that opposition coalition that put the Dems in power. So for all practical purposes, its closer to 3 Dems vs 1 Republican.

The Alaska State Senate


[edit on 13-9-2008 by vor78]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Ok, now we're really grasping at straws. Why not just face the facts, they formed a bi-partisan commission and decided there's a need to subpoena Palin's husband for evidence in the investigation. There's another thread for that discussion anyway, this one's mainly about the Library books.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


It is off topic, but you're the one who mentioned it. I'm simply pointing out that its not just as simple as Dem vs Republican in the Alaska State Senate and definitely not as simple as saying that 2 Republicans and 2 Dems made that decision. One of the Republicans, Charlie Huggins, is a member of the opposition coalition that consistently sides with the Dems.

It is a vital fact that deserves to be acknowledged. Otherwise, it is a misrepresentation of the situation in the Alaska State senate as well as the state of the investigation.

(And since the rest regarding Hollis French and his support for Obama is not directly related to your earlier mention, I will remove that section from my earlier post).

[edit on 13-9-2008 by vor78]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
Any public official, appointed or elected, who uses their position to bully other staff and sack them for not fully supporting their agendas should be banned from public office, simple!


Ok, we need to apply this same standard to Hillary then. Remember Travel Gate? Remember the murder of Vince Foster? Remember Bill forcing his "whatever" in Monica's mouth? If those aren't prime examples of abuse of power I don't know what is...

There are a whole host of reasons for banning Democrats more than Republicans so you don't want to go down that road.

In fact I remember a girl that was killed in a car accident by some coward Kennedy guy. He didn't even get so much as a slap on the wrist.

I know Palin is an easy target for the left here but come on... You are really losing it and grasping at straws.

To me this entire thread needs to be closed based on the "new rules" but those rules seem to have some mystical fuzzy logic to them...



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by northof8
 


I think the new rules relate to political trolling, you know, when somebody posts nothing relevant to the discussion and just tries to bait the thread participants by making disparaging comments about the opposite party.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Palin's a hypocrite and a liar simple as that...

it's obvious she abused her power with the librarian and with the state trooper and how she reversed what she said about "God's Task" with the Iraq War. it's a clear as day she is a horrible candidate.

dont believe me... read the ABC Gibson interview and then to this other article with her.

ap.google.com...

and this whole Palin for VP was to sucker in the female votes and it's sad and distrubs me that the women of America can't see they're getting swindled. Palin is nowhere near qualified for the position. her past shady dealings while gov of Alaska are just the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I do not support Palin in any way, but it's important to prove these allegations before making an outcry about them; otherwise we are no better than our opposition. I expect there will be real dirt to dig on her soon enough--there's nobody perfect enough to escape some criticism.

IMO the reason people are jumping on this "book banning" issue is because it seems like something Palin would do, given her leanings. But that is just the reason why it must be thoroughly questioned.

What I would like to know is exactly why the librarian was fired, even though she was reinstated the next day, and the only way to know that for sure is to ask the librarian, who doesn't appear terribly forthcoming about it.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Hello,

I thought maybe I would throw my hat into the ring regarding the "original' post" and round this rodeo back up.

Regardless of the fact that no books were specifically asked to be banned, what I would like to know is why the question about protocol was presented to the librarian in the first place? Hypothetical or not. And why on more than one occasion?

Seems like the question on how books are added and maintained in a library would be a pretty consistent procedure spelled out in some form and guideline. Otherwise every time a library changed librarians they could just pick and choose what was on the shelf as per their own personal preferences. As far as librarians in general, at least the ones I've dealt with, they are a pretty open minded bunch willing to provide a wide range of information to as many people as possible without personal prejudice.

And before the question is brought up, I will go ahead and answer it. Yes, allowing such things as blatant pornography, as outlined by LOCAL standards would be an issue decided upon by the constituents of that community, not by decree of who may be in power at the time. I just use this as an EXAMPLE. That does not mean that my library should not carry a copy of Mein Kampf, by Adolph Hitler (which it does have).

OK, I'm wandering down a volatile path here and will probably be jumped on by somebody so I'll just quit that train of thought while I'm ahead.

My issue here is why did the question (see hypothetical) have to be asked more than once? Didn't get the answer you wanted the first time? Librarians are generally a pretty knowledgeable group and should have the capacity to offer a fairly concise and understandable answer to a vague question the first time.

But that's just my opinion.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by zlots331
 


And that is what's important. Not whether or not books were actually banned (they weren't), or what the list of books contained (there's no list) but what's important here is that Sarah Palin approached the librarian several times asking if she would "be all right with" getting some books banned. And the librarian said absolutely not and she was fired.

Alaska Daily News


Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so.

According to news coverage at the time, the librarian said she would definitely not be all right with it. A few months later, the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, got a letter from Palin telling her she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing. The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn't fully support her and had to go.

Emmons had been city librarian for seven years and was well liked. After a wave of public support for her, Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.


And the point of THIS thread is that the McCain Camp is defending this, saying it's appropriate for the new Mayor to come in the library and start asking "hypothetical" questions about getting books banned... Okie-dokie.


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.


From the original source.



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.”


John McCain is free to defend this. It just makes him look a ittle more slimy, in my opinion. He should have just ignored the accusation.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join