i think the point here is not htat she wanted to ban books, but that she wants to restrict, I say again RESTRICT, what our public schools teach our children.

I only skimmed across the lsit, and as it is a media's compilation, I am sure it is exagerated a bit, but a lot of what I saw tends to fall in with a "christian radicals" beliefs. Look at th elist again, and se ehow many have in one way or another to do with the occult (or magic), or with "non-christian" beliefs and ideals, like the one book "the new teenage body" or somehting like that.

I get a very strong impression that she will be another bush advocate insofar as saying that the only thing schools can teach about sex ed is abstinance and absolutely nothing else.

this list also inlcudes, numerous books that have beenr equired reading not only for us, but for our parents as well when they were in school, like hte catcher in the rhye, and of mice and men, anything by mark twain (which teaches free spirit and individualism, along with consequences.

i am sorry, but I just do NOT like what I am seeing and hearing concerning Ms. Palin.

you would be surprised how many people have tried t get mark twains works banned from public (and private catholic) schools. It has actually happened on more than oneoccasion too.

Well now I'M blushing But on the plus side.... I don't have to worry about what I wear!

Daniel, are you aware that email is false?

One obvious clue that this list must have been cobbled together from some source other than discussions that may have taken place in Wasilla in 1996 is that several of its entries (most notably the books in J.K. Rowling's popular Harry Potter series, which began in 1997) hadn't yet been published back then.

In fact, versions of this list have been circulating since at least as far back as 1998, and is actually a catch-all collection of titles said to be "books banned at one time or another in the United States."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

never I have a vivid imagination sorry OP

Before you get too far.... the list isn't hers. It's already been established and debunked. The topic now, in general, is whether she ever intended or wanted to ban books, and what that means. I realize there's 13 pages to scan, but a lot has been covered.

You stand firm that she wanted/intended to ban books, tngxl?

This happened over 12 yrs ago, why do you think it never happened?

My guess is that she realized it couldn't be done quietly and it would cause a political stir.

I also can't seem to buy in to the claim that she was firing the librarian because it was a political appointment and she had supported the other candidate.

And, if she is/was opposed to it, she should come out and say it. With all her opportunity, she could have easily calmed my concerns by saying she was opposed to it. And she hasn't.

I can see her firing librarian in order to support another candidate, businesses do it all the time, they buy, take over and bring their own people. (jmo)

Whether she is for or against the bannings, why should she take a stand, nothing to gain or lose - people will only call it a farce - people will stop talking about her and for now any news is good news.

doublepost

And there's the problem with politics. Just TELL me how you really feel. They NEVER tell you what they really feel.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt if she says that she's opposed to it. Seriously. And I don't think there's a downside for saying it. Those that don't believe her think the worst anyhow.

boy you truly feel strongly - posting twice and all.

sunshine - everything has already been done, people have made their own judgements with and without facts, feel strongly about their opinion. All these things formed without complete info.

Why should she say the truth, we are talking politics.

Why not mandate 'everyone' to speak the truth and not just their truths but the entire truth, all the time. Problem solved

I know I know I am an optimist I know

I think you'd be surprised by the number of people sitting in the middle of all of this still trying to pick a side. Believe it or not, I'm one of them... bet you didn't get that out of my posts. Many people are still taking it all in trying to figure out which direction they want to go. This is the first election where I won't be disappointed with either outcome. I, personally, think both candidates are good, decent people. And that means a lot to me.

the number of the undecided does not shock me, this is how I think it will be:

out of those say 5 people for ease of illustration

3 out of 5 will vote either as per political affilication

1 may make up his/her own mind - based on facts

1 will sit back and b!tch and lie about who he/she voted for when in fact they did not vote

And the non-voter will scream the loudest over the next 4 years! It's the american way.

exactly, they will point fingers, they will bring up information from the past while never looking at today nor tomorrow nor offering solutions.

What I do get is all WE DO is complain, point fingers, fling accusations, slander/liable other people, but never accept responsibility nor take positive action. Why accept blame when we can blame everyone else!!!

I say we make that another mandate, all AMERICANS must vote add that to speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and see our numbers dwindle and the most boisterous become docile.



(heading back to my optimistic corner) ya coming???