![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here's the most recent (and seemingly most accurate) update on VP candidate questioning the Wassila librarian about banning books.
In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.
Thanks to Constance Ash for the link
In December 1996, Emmons told her hometown newspaper, the Frontiersman, that Palin three times asked her -- starting before she was sworn in -- about possibly removing objectionable books from the library if the need arose.
Thanks to Constance Ash for the link
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
(I seem to be on a mission in your post here to use my Calvin & Hobbes icons; here, have this one, it's my favorite.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
(From this comic, of course.)
(http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-denial.gif)
From:
no subject
My dad, who is what I like to call a devout atheist, has become more and more entrenched in his belief that the Republican party are holding back the dark and protecting us all from economic doom and Communism, while remaining in complete denial (love your icon) about their attitudes toward atheists.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
For the economy, we need better quality Republicans. I admit, the crowd in office right now aren't much to write home about. But the ones in office the latter 1990s, Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America boys, were pretty darned good. Balanced the budget. Reformed welfare. Impeached the president... okay, the last part was dumb, and they deserved what they got. Gods, hubris, you do the math.
I think the economy works better when government is divided between the parties. They both tend to keep each other's craziness in check.
Foreign policy? Suppose Gore had been elected in 2000. He probably still would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. Same deal there. Iraq? Probably not. Saddam Hussein would remain in power, the sanctions would be gone (they were collapsing rapidly even in the late 1990s), and Saddam would be back to murdering the Shiites and Kurds, and invading a neighbor again. When we'd be forced to step in again, and probably depose him at that time, instead of in 2003. Gore would be blamed for the resulting quagmire, and the Republicans would sneer, "If only we had been in power, things would have been *very* different."
Iran? Still playing at building nukes. North Korea? The same. France would still be stand-offish in public, but cooperative in private (as they are now). Israel and the Palestinians would still be at each other's throats.
We might have economic relations with Cuba. That's really the only substantial foreign policy improvement I could see happening in a Gore administration.
Or maybe I'm just nuts.
From:
no subject
We wouldn't have been in Iraq --a great thing
Iran--IS still playing at building nukes
North Korea would have been dealt with years ago, instead of as an emergency--gee, maybe we should start talking to them-- in the last year
Israel and the Palestinians --Bush did nothing the first 7 years in office. The only reason he's trying to do anything now is his legacy. I'd love to see peace between Israel and the Palestinians but so far the Republicans have done little to further that in my eyes, while the Democrats did, particularly Clinton (although ultimately his peace effort failed thanks to Arafat.
Clinton reformed welfare not Newt.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:From:
no subject
(no subject)
From:From:
no subject
From:
no subject
No one ever wins a political argument anyway. No one changes their mind. Everyone just hates each other when it's over. Except uncle Elmer who keeled over while trying to defend bimetallism, and now the paramedics are doing CPR on him.
There's a reason families have rules about no politics at the dinner table.
From:
no subject
Republicans and Democrats obviously see the same events in a completely different light. I don't think it could always have been this way and it's a shame that it is now.
From:
no subject
That we can't always be civil to each other is a problem. Some families are better about it than others and can manage to discuss a wide range of subjects, including politics, in their dinner table talk. I can't talk to my dad about politics, but that's because he refuses to be civil about it, and even then I've never thought he hated me, nor do I think he thought I hated him.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
So your dad doesn't realize that the Soviet Union has fallen and that the Cold War is over? That's truly weird.
From:
no subject
I'm not really sure when he changed, though. Because I can remember him telling me he was an Independent the first time I asked, as a kid--I think I was about 10 at the time.
From:
no subject
I the late 60s-early 70s I'd have big fights with my dad about Vietnam. although he did change his mind and being anti (I don't know his opinions on it now). I try to not talk politics with him (my mom never gets involved) because certain topics are untouchable. My uncle (father's brother) is a Republican and after a few loud arguments in restaurants, my father, my uncle, and I stopped talking politics.
It's sad to see this country so divided politically. I would love to see some reconciliation but it'll never happen unless moderates of both parties prevail.
From:
no subject
But, while I have strong opinions, I try to express them civilly and to listen to what others have to say. A democracy isn't about everybody agreeing, only about everybody agreeing to follow the rules of democratic conduct--which include civil discussion and rule of law.
From:
no subject
No, this argument doesn't make any sense to me, either.