Can you name one time in History where it was a good thing to ban or burn books?
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
evince
Truthmatters
Time to present facts of your claims
What tears are supposedly being shed when shit is being shelved for racism?
Go get the posts that you claim exist.
LINK
FACTS
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
This is simple fact presented to you by someone who worked with the information. Socrates recently (he and I communicate elsewhere) was talking about that same fact. The reality is handling SCI (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information) is a step above normal classified info. The fact was they found (it was reported in the news as such) SCI info on her server (link to story from NBC about this is here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ls-contained-info-above-top-secret-ig-n499886 ). This right here is enough to have put me in Leavenworth. The only thing that kept her out of prison was deliberate action by the politically powerful.
What tears are supposedly being shed when shit is being shelved for racism?
Go get the posts that you claim exist.
LINK
FACTS
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
There's a long history of concern about government censorship. It's a legitimate concern, but that's not what's happening here.
Now, when businesses choose a different strategy, some groups of people take it upon themselves to bitch about it. What concerns me is when these groups start pushing the Federal government "to do something".
You and I both know that underneath this is the "Tech Lord" conspiracy theory and the demand that Trump's free account on Twitter be reinstated.
The bitching about the Dr. Seuss books is just chipping away at "cancel culture", which now means anything the Republicans like.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Are you demanding the Seuss heirs continue reprinting the books? You are free to buy as many as you like on Ebay.
Why are you whining and bitching about this?
Link and fact are good words. You should use them to backup your whines, Legion.
Peter Strzok, who served as a counterintelligence expert at the bureau, changed the description of Clinton's actions in Comey's statement, CNN reported...
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363194-former-fbi-agent-changed-comeys-language-of-clinton-email-use-to
Changing "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" avoided legal ramifications for the Hildebeast. An individual who mishandles classified material can be prosecuted under federal law for "gross negligence."
Nobody said it is.
No, I'm not.
Is that so?
Dr. Seuss Books Deemed Offensive Will Be Delisted From eBay
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-seuss-books-deemed-offensive-will-be-delisted-from-ebay-11614884201
See, stupid? Facts, and links.
Because his #2 changed the terms.
Strzok, who served as the No. 2 official leading the probe into the Clinton email server, has been thrust into the center of controversy after news of his dismissal from Comey's team. In July 2016, Comey said that Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State was "extremely careless," but he added that "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge her. Strzok changed the language from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless".
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/363194-former-fbi-agent-changed-comeys-language-of-clinton-email-use-to
Comey thought so but was overcome by the pressure from the AG, his boss, and the President. I believe that even you know that her gross negligence would have put me in prison because I would not have an AG and a President on my side. Political power, and IMHO corruption, saved her where nobody would have acted like that in my behalf if I had been even partially as irresponsible with SCI as she was.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Word choice. I would have gone with "grossly negligent" but I'm not a fucking lawyer.
Was a crime committed? If so, why didn't Trump do anything about it for four fucking years? Is this about Epstein again?
Geeko Sportivo
Verified User
Dr. Seuss books have been around since before I was born in the early 50's. I remember owning a copy of the "Cat In The Hat" as a small child. Probably the only one I ever looked at.
And I do not see any problem with a publishing company taking their own product out of Syndication at their own choosing- if they deem the book to have racial overtones in it if they so choose to do so themselves.
And as far as I've read- THIS IS THE CASE!
It's their property- and it's their right to do so! NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO TAKE THEIR OWN PRODUCT OFF THE MARKET!
If any of you assholes want to try and make a political statement out of this or blame liberals or Black people for this- I think you need to go and get a life and STFU! Go find you a butterfly to tear the wings off or something!
Next case please!
And I do not see any problem with a publishing company taking their own product out of Syndication at their own choosing- if they deem the book to have racial overtones in it if they so choose to do so themselves.
And as far as I've read- THIS IS THE CASE!
It's their property- and it's their right to do so! NO ONE IS FORCING THEM TO TAKE THEIR OWN PRODUCT OFF THE MARKET!
If any of you assholes want to try and make a political statement out of this or blame liberals or Black people for this- I think you need to go and get a life and STFU! Go find you a butterfly to tear the wings off or something!
Next case please!
Last edited: