Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:15 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
The Left's Children's Crusade 
Author Message
Years of membership
Intern


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Texas
Thanks: 6
Thanked: 62 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Oops. I got my government atrocities confused. The shortened gun led to the Ruby Ridge Incident, where federal agents murdered some of Randy Weaver's family. The survivors later won a wrongful death case and were awarded millions of dollars. They only survived to collect because they had guns to shoot back at the government agents.

google.com/search?q=ruby+ridge&ie=u ... irefox-b-1

The Waco incident was triggered when agents tried to serve a warrant at the Branch Davidian compound. The warrant is here:

http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/waco.html

It's a hodgepodge of suppositions and wishful thinking. The feds and human services wanted to shut down the compound, so they threw that thing together. They found a judge to sign it and it was off to the races. 51 days later they had murdered 82 citizens.

The 2nd amendment is very clear on gun ownership. NO laws limiting ownership should exist. I don't see a problem with denying an individual the right to guns if s/he has demonstrated a danger in that area (like pulling a driver's license after a DUI), but should we ban EVERYONE from driving just because one person is dangerous behind the wheel?

A good piece on what the 2nd Amendment means:

http://krisannehall.com/lesson-gun-control-2/?pdf=24844

Guns are necessary to keep government from becoming abusive. The Bundy Ranch Standoff is a good example of this. In 2014 there was an armed standoff between agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and supporters of Cliven Bundy. The BLM claimed he owed the government a million bucks for grazing rights. The BLM is notorious for seizing private property. They work with organizations like the Clinton Foundation, which helped furnish Russia with 20% of America's uranium in the Uranium One deal. Some of that uranium will be coming off of lands seized by the BLM.

Anyway, in 2014, federal agents were going to confront the Bundy family and probably murder them, the usual M.O. But the government shock forces were met with this:

Image

Image

The government retreated. They grabbed members of the family later and locked them up, tortured them and so on, but in January of this year the charges against them were dropped. A judge reprimanded the feds for grave violations of the law.

The discussion stemming from the Florida school shooting should be about making schools safe, not about depriving law-abiding citizens of guns. We need guns to protect ourselves from the government.


_________________


Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:01 pm
Profile Email
Years of membership
Intern


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Texas
Thanks: 6
Thanked: 62 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Broward County (where the school shooting took place) is operating under an awful Obama-era policy:

...deputies working as school resource officers in Broward County had their hands tied after the school district overhauled its student conduct code in 2013 with its Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline.

The agreement, developed with partners including the NAACP, the Broward County sheriff and Broward state attorney, included a diversionary program for repeat offenders called PROMISE and listed 14 misdemeanors no longer subject to school-based arrest.


m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/n ... -obama-po/

Fifty school districts across the US adopted this scheme (race-based of course, coming from racist Obama), whereby students wouldn't be charged with crimes committed at school. So, when Cruz showed up with bullets in his backpack, and should have been arrested and put in the NICS system, he wasn't. He was later able to buy a gun because the school didn't file charges. Thanks to Obama.

More on the program:

The new policy resulted from an Obama administration effort begun in 2011 to keep students in school and improve racial outcomes (timeline here), and came against a backdrop of other efforts to rein in perceived excesses in "zero tolerance" discipline policies, including in Florida.

Broward school Superintendent Robert W. Runcie – a Chicagoan and Harvard graduate with close ties to President Obama and his Education Department – signed an agreement with the county sheriff and other local jurisdictions to trade cops for counseling. Students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, would now be disciplined through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses and other “self-esteem building” exercises.

Asserting that minority students, in particular, were treated unfairly by traditional approaches to school discipline, Runcie’s goal was to slash arrests and ensure that students, no matter how delinquent, graduated without criminal records.


realclearinvestigations.com/articles/20 ... oting.html

School safety can be improved by eliminating that policy. Commit a serious crime in school, face charges. If you're convicted, then that may stop you from buying a gun later.


_________________


Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:17 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4286
Location: NC
Thanks: 1767
Thanked: 1826 times in 1385 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
. . . The 2nd amendment is very clear on gun ownership. NO laws limiting ownership should exist.

Not even remotely true. Even the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

That last line is a direct quote by the way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller

What if a gun were invented that could vaporize a 20-story building? Would that be protected by the Second Amendment as well? Could we all go out and buy Vaporizer Guns with less paperwork than it takes to drive a car? Of course not. As Justice Scalia wrote, and the Supreme Court has ruled, the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and guns will continue to be regulated.

I don't know what's scarier: that dangerous and mentally unstable people are murdering innocent people on the streets of America with increasing regularity, or that there's a growing religious cult of gun fanatics, who have no understanding of constitutional law and who "interpret" the Second Amendment any way they see fit, based on lies spoon-fed to them by the NRA.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Harry Marks
Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:28 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
So Awesome

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1061
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 465 times in 387 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Well, if any tinpot Korean dictator can have nukes, then obviously we need our own nukes to defend ourselves. I think I found a place on the dark web that will sell me mine.



Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:31 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5568
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2067
Thanked: 1981 times in 1509 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Social polarisation produces a politics of over-reach. People make ambit claims, expecting that the political negotiation process will lead to a partial result. But in the case of guns in the USA, the ambit claims have been successful, and children get subsidised bazookas (joke).

What tends to happen when an ambit claim unexpectedly wins is that it generates a reaction, a social backlash that ends up delivering a worse outcome from the advocates' perspective than would have occurred if they had had the sense to negotiate in the first place by giving up on their unrealistic ambit claims.

The most sensible thing the NRA could do now is come out from its bunker with its hands up, and call for restrictions on assault rifles. Otherwise they might not like how a post-2020 anti-Trump Democratic Presidency reacts to the Florida groundswell.

But no doubt Geo is right about the fanatical gun cult, and there are NRA supporters who are gunning for a civil war to install a military dictatorship. Their line of thinking, ala Westboro, seems to be to purge the commo trash, based on an intransigent blinkered religious sense of righteous anger that will brook no dealings with the subhuman faggoty city-dwellers who want to take away their assault rifles.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
geo
Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:01 pm
Profile Email WWW
Years of membership
Intern


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Texas
Thanks: 6
Thanked: 62 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

infringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

That's the second amendment to the US Constitution, plus a definition. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not "should not" be infringed, "shall not" be infringed.

I know eight-year-olds who can tell me what the statement means.

Lots of different judges have had lots of different opinions on the amendment. And yes, I should be able to own a vaporizer. The federal government should not limit my ownership of one. Cannot, according to the Second Amendment. But if local voters want to limit the ownership, that's a different matter. That's not the federal government violating its governing document. If I want to own a vaporizer then I should move to a place that allows them. True, the place wouldn't exist for long...

I think I'll start a thread on the Bill of Rights here someday. I can't tell if you leftists honestly don't understand the document or if you just pretend not to.

I may start a gun thread too. This one is supposed to be about the despicable way that leftists are using a school shooting to advance an anti-gun agenda. I suspect that leftists on this thread harp on the gun thing because it draws attention away from Obama's hand in the murders. And the over-drugging of children. Leftists crave control, and drugging people is a way to achieve that.

Image


_________________


Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:10 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Bookasaurus

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1922
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 63
Thanked: 693 times in 535 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

 Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
And yes, I should be able to own a vaporizer.


Based on your erratic rhetoric I think we can trust you to operate one of those, but not much else. :P


Attachments:
vaporizer.jpg
vaporizer.jpg [ 44.12 KiB | Viewed 1100 times ]

The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
geo
Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:14 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4286
Location: NC
Thanks: 1767
Thanked: 1826 times in 1385 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes, the Second Amendment's emphasis was on the militias, not on private individuals, as many constitutional scholars have discussed over the years. Either way, there are different views on the subject. Though it's your opinion that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees individual rights to own any gun, that's not the case in the real world. If you don't believe me, why don't you walk down the street carrying a loaded Thompson (Tommy) gun without a permit and see what happens.

One of the purposes of the Constitution is to strike a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. We give up certain rights in order to live in an orderly society. Else, as Thomas Hobbes said, we descend into a nasty, brutish, and short existence. That's why we look at the founder's intentions and try to apply them to the modern world. Not always an easy task. Certainly not as black and white as you make it out.

And then my final, final point would be that our citizens don't need guns to keep our government in check nearly as much as they need to be educated and well-informed.

Note: I edited this post a couple of times today.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
DWill, Harry Marks
Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:21 pm
Profile
Years of membership
Intern


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Texas
Thanks: 6
Thanked: 62 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
Well, whether it's true ignorance of the Bill of Rights or just pretending not to understand the document, you folks do yourselves no favors. Pol Pot disarmed Cambodians before he murdered the "educated and well-informed" in that country. Let's dig them up and ask them how come their brains didn't fare better against the government's guns. A country of 3 million, 1 million murdered because they were "smart." Really, because Pol Pot feared opposition, he ordered the execution of "smart" people. If you wore eyeglasses, you were killed. Our founding fathers knew that things like that could happen. Massachusetts knew it too, once. At the time that the Constitution was implemented, every head of household in Massachusetts had to own a firearm.

But back to the subject at hand--school shootings.

Accused Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz is apparently going to plead not guilty to the charges:

msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-judge-ent ... ar-BBKdmAS

It sounds as if he has a pretty good defense.

A teacher said she saw what she thought was a cop doing the shooting:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... eacher.mp4

She described the shooter in metal armor, helmet, etc., shooting a type of rifle she'd never seen. AR-15s are all over the news, we've all seen them, teachers are trained for shooting scenarios, but she saw a gun like one she'd never seen. Cruz had purchased an AR.

Minutes after the shooting, police were seen hustling a duffel bag out of the school. An active crime scene, removing evidence:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... police.mp4

One witness said she was with Cruz when gunfire was going off:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... erview.mp4

Another witness said she heard gunfire coming from multiple points:

mikesheedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/ ... erview.mp4

Cruz may have pleaded not guilty of his own accord, or the plea may have been entered out of procedural necessity. Whatever the case, he definitely has reasonable doubt on his side. Possible evidence tampering as well.


_________________


Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:39 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6043
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1633
Thanked: 1764 times in 1356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
The 2nd amendment is very clear on gun ownership. NO laws limiting ownership should exist. I don't see a problem with denying an individual the right to guns if s/he has demonstrated a danger in that area (like pulling a driver's license after a DUI), but should we ban EVERYONE from driving just because one person is dangerous behind the wheel?

A good piece on what the 2nd Amendment means:

http://krisannehall.com/lesson-gun-control-2/?pdf=24844

Guns are necessary to keep government from becoming abusive. The Bundy Ranch Standoff is a good example of this. In 2014 there was an armed standoff between agents of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and supporters of Cliven Bundy. The BLM claimed he owed the government a million bucks for grazing rights. The BLM is notorious for seizing private property. They work with organizations like the Clinton Foundation, which helped furnish Russia with 20% of America's uranium in the Uranium One deal. Some of that uranium will be coming off of lands seized by the BLM.

You'd have us believe that the Second Amendment was put in to affirm the right of citizens to form militias against the very government that the Constitution defines. That's a tortured and wrong reading of the amendment. The "well regulated militia" is clearly an adjunct of the state, considered necessary to protect it from threats. There was no standing army in 1791; there were no government army soldiers or government-issued weapons. From the wording of the Amendment, we can assume that the writers of the Constitution considered having firearms to be a right of citizens. I've never denied that. But it's an open question whether this right would have been enshrined in the Constitution had not militias been considered so important. After all, the Constitution itself says there exist more rights than the document explicitly protects. When the ownership of guns became essentially irrelevant to the national defense, the rationale for the Second Amendment disappeared. In other words, the reason for saying the right to bear arms shall not be infringed disappeared. It strains credulity that the founders of the government would have believed that some other interest existed important enough to justify a modern belief that anything to do with guns must be beyond the reach of legislation. That they would witness U.S. citizens infringing "the security of a free state" by murdering other citizens in droves and not think laws should be adjusted, is unthinkable.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
geo
Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:48 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Bookasaurus

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1922
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 63
Thanked: 693 times in 535 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

 Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
DWill wrote:
You'd have us believe that the Second Amendment was put in to affirm the right of citizens to form militias against the very government that the Constitution defines. That's a tortured and wrong reading of the amendment. The "well regulated militia" is clearly an adjunct of the state, considered necessary to protect it from threats.

Yes. The role of militias provided by the U.S. Constitution is very different from modern gun culture propaganda.
Quote:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

Under Article 1, this "calling forth" can be done only by Congress. The clause lists only three reasons why this can be done.
Quote:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

This clarifies even further who is in charge of militias, quite the opposite of contemporary misconceptions!



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
DWill, Harry Marks
Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:34 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
So Awesome

Book Discussion Leader

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1061
Thanks: 951
Thanked: 465 times in 387 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
geo wrote:
Yes, the Second Amendment's emphasis was on the militias, not on private individuals, as many constitutional scholars have discussed over the years. Either way, there are different views on the subject. Though it's your opinion that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees individual rights to own any gun, that's not the case in the real world.
You mean they might have left out the "militias" part if that was their intent? Not one of Scalia's most consistent moments as an originalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller
geo wrote:
If you don't believe me, why don't you walk down the street carrying a loaded Thompson (Tommy) gun without a permit and see what happens.
Me, I'm bringing my howitzer. That way the guy with the Tommy gun doesn't even get close enough to use it.

geo wrote:
And then my final, final point would be that our citizens don't need guns to keep our government in check nearly as much as they need to be educated and well-informed.
That's elitist talk. If guns were good enough for David Koresh and Cliven Bundy, they're good enough for me. Only wusses rely on rule of law.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
geo
Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:19 pm
Profile Email
Years of membership
Intern


Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Texas
Thanks: 6
Thanked: 62 times in 52 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
My earlier post on this was deleted.

I pointed out that the left-wing party in America, the Democrats, recruit from the ignorant and ill-informed. They have to because people with any sense at all can see through their BS. But the latest recruitment ploy, the reach into the pool of juveniles, is beyond disgusting. And they're not even recruiting voters, they're recruiting child soldiers. Marchers.

But people are beginning to see this for the despicable act it is.

Chicago GOP to File Lawsuit Against Chicago Public Schools: Student Walkout ‘Political Indoctrination, Pure and Simple’

“It’s appalling that 10 to 14-year-old kids would be coerced, by their teachers, to participate in a political demonstration,” said Chris Cleveland, chairman of the Chicago GOP, in a statement. “A 10-year-old kid isn’t going to have an informed opinion on these political matters, and shouldn’t be expected to have the fortitude to hold a different opinion from everyone else in his or her classroom. This is political indoctrination, pure and simple.”

http://12160.info/page/chicago-gop-to-fil

Clear evidence of how ill-informed the children being used as pawns are. This student thinks an AR-15 makes deer explode:

https://youtu.be/KZzwsaK6abA

And if you don't go along with the propagandizing...

High School Teacher Placed on Leave after Questioning National School walkout

12160.info/profiles/blogs/high-school-t ... e=activity

What's being done with the children is clearly child abuse. School administrators who facilitate the abuse should be fired. And Clooney and Soros and the rest who have contributed money to this should be looked at for facilitating child abuse.


_________________


Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:52 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6043
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1633
Thanked: 1764 times in 1356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
I haven't seen anything that supports the accusation of manipulation of the children. Certainly there's nothing that does in your links. Is the contention that kids have nothing really to be scared of, so the only possible reason for their protest must be that they're proxies for gun-hating adults? I think it's pretty silly to say that students shouldn't speak unless they have workable, technically correct policy proposals. That's supposed to be the work of the adults who run things. The students are filling a void in leadership.

The student who spoke about AR-15s being high-powered weapons may be technically wrong. That doesn't mean his protest is empty. We hear this "gunsplainin'" all the time from your side. Getting the gun details wrong isn't nearly as big a deal as you make it out to be.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
geo, Harry Marks
Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:20 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4286
Location: NC
Thanks: 1767
Thanked: 1826 times in 1385 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: The Left's Children's Crusade
KindaSkolarly wrote:
Chicago GOP to File Lawsuit Against Chicago Public Schools: Student Walkout ‘Political Indoctrination, Pure and Simple’


The GOP has come a long way since William F. Buckley Jr., who once said, "Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great."

How true these words have come to be. Today the GOP is devoid of ideas and seems to exist only to react against the ideas of the left. As David Brooks recently noted, "Conservatism is now less a political or philosophic movement and more a separatist subculture that participates in its own ostracism." This is a prime example. Instead of working to improve our nation's gun laws, they put all their energy into putting up barriers to those who do want change. While there is probably some truth to these charges of political indoctrination, the GOP is still doing nothing constructive here. They created this atmosphere with their long-standing alliance with the NRA and far-right ideology and now all they can do is cry foul with the inevitable backlash.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/opin ... collection


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
DWill
Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:29 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 5.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm

• What's next on our Short Story menu?
Mon May 22, 2017 8:29 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2018. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank