California proving to be the state of insanity

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So we're back to...

"Well, no, it doesn't actually say what I'm telling you that it does, but if you'll accept all of my arguments, I hope to convince you that it says so, anyway."

No.

Yes. In the absence of specific language doing what you say it does, you have no argument. And even if it did what you claim it does, that wouldn't ban any book or other media, since doing so would violate the first amendment.

The author of the article made clear statements as to how the bill would clear the way to ban books (and, potentially, the bible).

You forgot to post that. Could you do that, now?

 

[nikolai_42]

Barbarian observes:
So we're back to...

"Well, no, it doesn't actually say what I'm telling you that it does, but if you'll accept all of my arguments, I hope to convince you that it says so, anyway."



Yes. In the absence of specific language doing what you say it does, you have no argument. And even if it did what you claim it does, that wouldn't ban any book or other media, since doing so would violate the first amendment.



You forgot to post that. Could you do that, now?

Unless you are claiming that the argument doesn't support the banning of books (just the sale of them), it is pretty clear how the author claims the door is opened for the banning of books. But if it is just the sale of it that is being banned, then we have a similar example in what happened with smoking. It's a social evil and so we have to penalize anyone making money off of it (so the reasoning goes) but we can't call it illegal (and thus, with the stroke of a pen, make a good chunk of the populace ipso facto criminals - including many lawmakers themselves) so we penalize the tobacco companies and effectively make it a non-profitable business to engage in. It's an end-around. We want to make smoking illegal, but we can't - because that wouldn't look good and would violate certain rights.

Did you not read the article by Mr. French? He made specific arguments.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Trump White house? :think:

No, I don't think any of these guys are democrats...

None of them are criminals either you half-witted jackass.

Go rub some more lipstick on your poster of The Kenyan and shut your piehole

 

[MrDante]

None of them are criminals either you half-witted jackass.

Go rub some more lipstick on your poster of The Kenyan and shut your piehole

Michael Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI during the course of a criminal investigation.

Paul Manafort - indited by grand jury and awaiting trial on multiple charges

Rick Gates - plead guilty in federal court to lying to investigators and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States

Jared Kushner - pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI,

George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials about his contacts with Russian nationals