Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

LessisNevermore

audiobliss wrote: »

Wow. What a revolting testimony of today's society.

AMEN!

Wait, are you referring to the warning label, the article, or the responses in this thread?;)
agreed on all counts.

tonyb

I have a flag up now...with every name of every person who perished in 9-11. Love that damn thing.I would still like to know from all you lawyer types out there,why it is that when you call for the destruction of our society,of capitalism, free trade,of the government in general, when you call for all those who don't believe as you do,to die, when you create laws that undermine our constitution, when you give aid and comfort to our enemies, How is it that nobody is ever tried for treason ? Just curious is all.

tonyb

bobman1235 wrote: »

Allowed what to happen? There are already some countries that don't allow people to speak out against their governments. None of them are what you would call free. I'd prefer to live here.

True,but in case you haven't been paying attention, we are not far from that exact scenario.
Think hate speech laws and laws being sought to limit political speech online.

LessisNevermore

TNRabbit wrote: »

“This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today.”

The disclaimer goes on to tell parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

I see nothing about morals, values, debunking our founding fathers, or any of the other things mentioned here, or in the story. These documents were written when women were not allowed to vote, a black person was considered 3/5 of a man, and so on. How is this a story again???

One doesn't start to get fired up about this, until reading the comments gleaned by the author, most of which mention everything BUT what the disclaimer warns about. Sheesh, they probably did it to keep out of a lawsuit from some tool who thinks that by re-printing these works, is condoning the practices of the day.:rolleyes:


Non-story, end of story.

tonyb

Your kidding I hope.......

bobman1235

Defending one side doesn't mean I condone the actions of that side. Just because people try to quiet your views, you feel it's OK to try and quiet theirs? THat's just plain hypocrisy, I'm sorry. And confusing the issue with all this other stuff is exactly that - confusing the issue. I understand what you're saying, tonyb, I do. I'm mad about a lot of those things, but I focus on those issues when they arise, I don't try and lump them into something stupid like this.

tonyb

Lump them into what..exactly?

unc2701

tonyb wrote: »

I have a flag up now...with every name of every person who perished in 9-11. Love that damn thing.I would still like to know from all you lawyer types out there,why it is that when you call for the destruction of our society,of capitalism, free trade,of the government in general, when you call for all those who don't believe as you do,to die, when you create laws that undermine our constitution, when you give aid and comfort to our enemies, How is it that nobody is ever tried for treason ? Just curious is all.

tonyb wrote: »

True,but in case you haven't been paying attention, we are not far from that exact scenario.
Think hate speech laws and laws being sought to limit political speech online.

HOLY COGNITIVE DISSONANCE, BATMAN!

tonyb wrote: »

Your kidding I hope.......

...and he gets the bonus homophone. Well played, sir

LessisNevermore

tonyb wrote: »

Your kidding I hope.......

Not on your life.
Show it to me within the ACTUAL quoted disclaimer, where I missed the treasonous message.

tonyb

they probably did it to keep out of a lawsuit from some tool who thinks that by re-printing these works, is condoning the practices of the day.


Really ? Do you see the same disclosure on any books on communism/marxist/islam ?
So I guess they must not be too worried about condoning those practices,eh.:rolleyes:

bobman1235

call for the destruction of our society,of capitalism, free trade,of the government in general, when you call for all those who don't believe as you do,to die, when you create laws that undermine our constitution, when you give aid and comfort to our enemies

When you lump THOSE people that you're ranting about in that quote into the same group as an overly cautious lawyer who puts a disclaimer on some documents. People have the right to say the things in the article above. It has nothing to do with any of the stuff you say in that quote. NOne.

tonyb

LessisNevermore wrote: »

I see nothing about morals, values, debunking our founding fathers, or any of the other things mentioned here, or in the story. These documents were written when women were not allowed to vote, a black person was considered 3/5 of a man, and so on. How is this a story again???

One doesn't start to get fired up about this, until reading the comments gleaned by the author, most of which mention everything BUT what the disclaimer warns about. Sheesh, they probably did it to keep out of a lawsuit from some tool who thinks that by re-printing these works, is condoning the practices of the day.:rolleyes:


Non-story, end of story.

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Not on your life.
Show it to me within the ACTUAL quoted disclaimer, where I missed the treasonous message.

Wasn't trying to connect the disclaimer to treason,was speaking generally.

tonyb

bobman1235 wrote: »

When you lump THOSE people that you're ranting about in that quote into the same group as an overly cautious lawyer who puts a disclaimer on some documents. People have the right to say the things in the article above. It has nothing to do with any of the stuff you say in that quote. NOne.

An overly cautious lawyer would put the same disclosure on other works too,no?

bobman1235

Do you think those books SHOULD have disclaimers, tony? If so, that's hypocritical. If NOT, then why even bring it up?

kevhed72

Another rabel-rousing story from Fox news.

LessisNevermore

tonyb wrote: »

they probably did it to keep out of a lawsuit from some tool who thinks that by re-printing these works, is condoning the practices of the day.


Really ? Do you see the same disclosure on any books on communism/marxist/islam ?
So I guess they must not be too worried about condoning those practices,eh.:rolleyes:

Here's a quote from a conservative think tank member, and it was in the actual story, (edit: it was in the original post)

Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, says the company may be trying to ensure that oversensitive people don't pull its works off bookstore or library shelves.

"Any idea that’s 100 years old will probably offend someone or other," Olson told FoxNews.com. "…But if there’s anything that you ought to be able to take at a first gulp for yourself and then ask your parents if you're wondering about this or that strange thing, it should be the founding documents of American history."

This was found after I made my post, but kind of reinforces it, wouldn't you say?

Read the WHOLE story, then decide to be outraged, or not.

Barefoot

Paranoid right-wing circle jerks FTW. And I thought Club Polk was a place to discuss vintage gear and everything SDA. WTF was I thinking? :rolleyes:

tonyb

bobman1235 wrote: »

Do you think those books SHOULD have disclaimers, tony? If so, that's hypocritical. If NOT, then why even bring it up?

If your reasoning is such, an overly cautious lawyer, then common sense dictates that the same disclosure would be present on other works. I think the whole disclaimer is just B.S. I can see a disclaimer if a piece is pornographic in nature,has disturbing pics,not suitable for certain ages,and so on, this disclaimer is not even a standard one, by any legal terms.

tonyb

Barefoot wrote: »

Paranoid right-wing circle jerks FTW. And I thought Club Polk was a place to discuss vintage gear and everything SDA. WTF was I thinking? :rolleyes:

It is my man, a gazillion other threads on what you want. So why click on this one when it's clearly not an SDA thread ?

tonyb

Do they have a disclaimer on the Bible too ? Just curious because "any idea 100 years old..", let alone 1600 years old.

LessisNevermore

kevhed72 wrote: »

Another rabel-rousing story from Fox news.

Fox News......years behind, when seconds count! (check the copyright date):rolleyes:



Again....

Why is this a story?

nooshinjohn

LessisNevermore wrote: »

This was found after I made my post, but kind of reinforces it, wouldn't you say?

Read the WHOLE story, then decide to be outraged, or not.

The real outrage for me is that these documents are no longer examined with any scrutiny in our educational system any more on any level. If they were, there would be no need for such a disclaimer. To me the disclaimer serves to cast a disparaging light on the Founders and their great works, not to mention that it brings these documents down to a level that makes them irrelevant today. Open a new copy of Mein Kampf or the writings of Karl Marx... there is no such disclaimer for these horrific works... WHY!!! It can be seen with the naked eye that those two books did more damage in seconds than any poorly written article within the Constitution. Even our law schools, which are supposed to be well versed in our constitution, ignore it for the most part and use case law instead as their basis for study.

It should be mandatory two semesters in High Schools across our land to study the Founders and the roles they played, as well as the Constitution in all it's detail both good AND bad. Student's should fully understand the Amendment process, and the way Congress was meant to operate. I did not know for example, that the 17th amendment gave citizens the ability to vote for their Senators. Prior to this, they were chosen by State Legislatures and Governors, and thus were subject to instant recall if they took positions against the better interest of their State... The founder's original intent was therefore, to have the house of representative protect the rights of the people, and the Senate to protect the rights of the states. Sadly none of this happens today, and it is a wonder that this coincides with the decline in importance of the teaching of our founding documents.

We, as a people, need to have a full and uncolored understanding of how things work. In this manner, we are better able to set things right when they go astray from the original intent of our Founders.

tonyb

Case law John,and international law, you don't even have to fully understand our constitution to graduate from...dear I say...Haaavard.

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

Case law John,and international law, you don't even have to fully understand our constitution to graduate from...dear I say...Haaavard.

...or Princeton for that matter:) Let's not even begin on Yale.

LessisNevermore

tonyb wrote: »

Do they have a disclaimer on the Bible too ? Just curious because "any idea 100 years old..", let alone 1600 years old.

They should... thay's a lotta humpin' and killin & stuff.

Rated "M" for Mature

Rivrrat

nooshinjohn wrote: »

The real outrage for me is that these documents are no longer examined with any scrutiny in our educational system any more on any level. If they were, there would be no need for such a disclaimer. To me the disclaimer serves to cast a disparaging light on the Founders and their great works, not to mention that it brings these documents down to a level that makes them irrelevant today. Open a new copy of Mein Kampf or the writings of Karl Marx... there is no such disclaimer for these horrific works... WHY!!! It can be seen with the naked eye that those two books did more damage in seconds than any poorly written article within the Constitution. Even our law schools, which are supposed to be well versed in our constitution, ignore it for the most part and use case law instead as their basis for study.

It should be mandatory two semesters in High Schools across our land to study the Founders and the roles they played, as well as the Constitution in all it's detail both good AND bad. Student's should fully understand the Amendment process, and the way Congress was meant to operate. I did not know for example, that the 17th amendment gave citizens the ability to vote for their Senators. Prior to this, they were chosen by State Legislatures and Governors, and thus were subject to instant recall if they took positions against the better interest of their State... The founder's original intent was therefore, to have the house of representative protect the rights of the people, and the Senate to protect the rights of the states. Sadly none of this happens today, and it is a wonder that this coincides with the decline in importance of the teaching of our founding documents.

We, as a people, need to have a full and uncolored understanding of how things work. In this manner, we are better able to set things right when they go astray from the original intent of our Founders.

Here you all go, the document text in all it's glory.

I need to use it occasionally on another board I frequent.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

hearingimpared

kevhed72 wrote: »

Another rabel-rousing story from Fox news.

Rabel-rousing LMAO! I guess it's better to sweep news that can affect our country under the carpet.

LessisNevermore wrote: »

Fox News......years behind, when seconds count! (check the copyright date):rolleyes:



Again....

Why is this a story?

Publishing Company Under Fire for Putting Warning Label on Constitution

By Diane Macedo

Published June 09, 2010

FOXNews.com

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Eh did you hear of this before the date above. I didn't and if you didn't apparently it finally got some exposure and Fox (fair and balanced as always) reported it.

So let's bash Fox News for reporting a story that is three years old even though it hasn't been brought to the forefront before now:rolleyes:.:rolleyes:

You guys crack me up. If there is a hint of conseratism in ANYTHING you guys will pull out the bigs gun right out of your behinds, typical!:rolleyes:

headrott

Wow! I just saw this thread for the first time, and am sickened by what that publishing company is pushing. As I read the original post, I could feel the anger building up in me. It's companies (and people) like this publishing company that are looking to destroy this country by spreading their disgusting filth. I will never buy a book from this publishing company.

Greg

hearingimpared

Yeah, God forbid we should air our disgust!

LessisNevermore

hearingimpared wrote: »

Rabel-rousing LMAO! I guess it's better to sweep news that can affect our country under the carpet.






Eh did you hear of this before the date above. I didn't and if you didn't apparently it finally got some exposure and Fox (fair and balanced as always)that's rich:rolleyes: reported it.

So let's bash Fox News for reporting a story that is three years old even though it hasn't been brought to the forefront before now:rolleyes:.:rolleyes:

You guys crack me up. If there is a hint of conseratism in ANYTHING you guys will pull out the bigs gun right out of your behinds, typical!:rolleyes:

*conservatism
And no, not true. But you're getting played by Faux News. No other major news outlet covered this story.....Why do you suppose that is?

Look, it's really not too complicated to see what is happening here......

Published June 09, 2010

FOXNews.com

A small publishing company is under fire after putting warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other historical documents.

Ok, at this point...June 09, 2010, who exactly are they under fire from, if Fox news is who broke the story? A few illiterate hot heads at Amazon?

Throw in some comments by folks who may, or may not have actually read the disclaimer, or had "the gist" of it fed to them. The first line of the story should be tossed for leading the witness, IMO. But with it in place, it sets up the disclaimer, which most didn't read, or flat out took out of context, then move to the comments from the "man on the street".

Bam, instant controversy. It's a gol-derned cunspuracy. :rolleyes:

It's a whole lot of flying off the handle over a $5.00 patriotic book.

I don't know, maybe because I read the disclaimer, and read no deeper than the exact words, but I still can find NOTHING subversive about it. Neither can anyone else, not without adding their own words to it. Try it.