"Oh...but we have other choices, Ron. IF we are donating our money...or is tax dollars are being used, which they are in this gallery's case, then we DO have the option of withdrawing funds for what we find offensive."
No, you do not. On federal, state and local taxes, there is no legal option to withhold such tax money...You may work in your community to try to have tax money reallocated but on an individual level you can't refuse to pay your taxes simply because you find art in the local gallery offensive.
posted on May 28, 2005 02:42:28 PM
LOL helen....well you continue supporting smut...and we'll see if the taxpayers can't/don't do anything about it. It's happened time and time again...the threat of withdrawing funding gets the problem dealt with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 28, 2005 02:57:47 PM
okay I missed this exhibit was supposed to be entitled controversy. (I did not read Linda's post throughly. Saw what I saw and that was enough)
I cannot find the artist's "Yahoo" that is in question,though. I'd like to see it to know if my assessment of it being porn is correct.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 28, 2005 03:04 PM ]
posted on May 28, 2005 02:59:00 PM
You couldn't be MORE WRONG helen.
Withdrawing funding is NOT cencorship. We all give to what we support...if we don't support something we stop giving. Works the same way in our Federal government. Take abortions...on and off Fed employees have and have not had their abortions paid for. WHY? Because all do not support it and don't want their funds used for that purpose. That is but one example.
But it was you who made this an 'individual' issue. I was speaking about their county tax dollars being spent to support this gallery. And they CAN, on their local level do something, very quickly to change the status quo.
And on who supports what, helen. I believe I support 'good' while you support 'evil'. You will fight to your death to support this filth...hey your opinion. While I will fight and financially support our Boy Scouts that people like you are working to destroy for no other reason than they believe in God. Such a terrible thing to believe in God. Such a terrible thing to pray...etc.
BUT HEY....support filth and argue that people don't have a RIGHT to withdraw their OWN funding of projects they see as smut... well...you get the picture I'm sure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 28, 2005 03:18:07 PM
"""While I will fight and financially support our Boy Scouts that people like you are working to destroy for no other reason than they believe in God."""
Why are you fighting AND supporting the Boy Scouts ???
Helen's destroying the Boy Scouts ????....because she believes in god?????
Boy, linduh can be confusing !
Helen, quit destroying Boy Scouts...that's just not nice
posted on May 28, 2005 03:35:44 PM
Believe it or not, I partly agree with Linda that "funding is not censorship". The entertainment business does it all the time when a musician sucks, is too controversial. The difference is that they have to buy out a contract to let the musician go.
However, the government is not the private sector and the government has to follow guidelines and the law with regard to civil rights. An indivduals opinion is not the law, it is their opinion. Anyone who applies for a government grant should have an equal opportunity to get that grant. An opinion of artistic value should not be part of that process. Some of the greatest art created was offensive to someone. It should be up to an individual whether they want to censor themselves from the art, not the art from the public.
"And on who supports what, helen. I believe I support 'good' while you support 'evil'. You will fight to your death to support this filth...hey your opinion. While I will fight and financially support our Boy Scouts that people like you are working to destroy for no other reason than they believe in God. Such a terrible thing to believe in God. Such a terrible thing to pray...etc."
That has got to be the most ludicrous statement that you have written. I support freedom of expression in the arts and that is GOOD. You on the other hand are advocating that the arts should be censored and that is BAD. You are advocating censorship.
This issue is not related to the Boy Scouts or God. My children were Girl Scouts when they were young and I supported their activities.. They also attended Sunday School and church. I have never attacked anyone's religious beliefs here. Where on earth are you coming up with such nonsense!
And, you obviously do not have much experience in doing things quickly on the county level. You can't just decide to withdraw your taxes as you stated previously. And, in order to remove art from a gallery it would have to be CENSORED.
"Believe it or not, I partly agree with Linda that "funding is not censorship". The entertainment business does it all the time when a musician sucks, is too"controversial. The difference is that they have to buy out a contract to let the musician go."[/i]
That *is unbelievable. . I am saying that in the case of art in a public gallery, a censor will have to be involved in order to eliminate the art that Linda wants removed from her gallery. That's censorship.
posted on May 28, 2005 04:01:43 PM
Helen, we know that Linda is a hypocrite. She is exactly what is wrong with America. She believes her opinion is all that matters. True conservatives would cringe to hear her spew most of her fascist hate, and some have made that pretty clear here. To claim she supports "good" and you support "evil" proves how shallow and uneducated she really is. Pay no attention to this imbicile. She is a waste of time.
posted on May 28, 2005 04:06:27 PM
Linda -"While I will fight and financially support our Boy Scouts that people like you are working to destroy for no other reason than they believe in God. Such a terrible thing to believe in God. Such a terrible thing to pray...etc."
Don't forget Boy Scouts exclude homosexuals. I wouldn't want you to get away with presenting us liberals as one dimensional you stupid dolt!
Linda, . The offensive nature of your comments toward me are unjustified and inappropriate. Since I have never attacked the Boy Scouts or even mentioned the Boy Scouts in the several years that I have posted here, your charge that I am working to destroy them is not only a lie but a statement that is so outrageous that I have to wonder about your emotional health.
Another question is why you chose to broach the topic of boy scouts in a thread about art.
You call art smut on one side of your mouth while delivering your brand of smut out the other side.
posted on May 28, 2005 04:42:05 PM
LOL helen....[i]I have never attacked anyone's religious beliefs here. Where on earth are you coming up with such nonsense[i]!
From your own posts.
And, you obviously do not have much experience in doing things quickly on the county level. You can't just decide to withdraw your taxes as you stated previously.
Maybe not in the big cities...but you sure can here and in MANY small cities where the population actually attends local government meetings, and lets our elected leaders KNOW where we stand on different issues going on in our town. Don't fool yourself thinking you know all about everything...because you don't.
And I stick by my statement it is NOT censorship...because NO ONE IS saying it's NOT going to be ALLOWED....it's just not going to get funded from those who have the right to object and not put their money towards that filth.
----------------
And then we have rusty....who once again has to get into all the name calling to help him feel so superior to others. Well, rusty, you're not. And whether you like it or not...
There is a difference between between having an opinion that what the ultra-lefties are trying to change/have changed being going in the wrong direction....ie - fighting all that has been good for our country...and supporting all that will bring us further down the path into a 'godless' Nation...that censors what we think, what we believe and our actions.
THAT is censorship by the left, towards the right. And towards the religious left.
I used the Boy Scouts as an example of the left doing all they can to remove their group from using, having the support of ANY FEDERAL money's spent for their group. VS....the left thinking this smut is a 'value' they MUST support....and that tax dollars HAVE to be there to support it. I'm saying it works BOTH ways. Can't argue that tax dollars HAS TO support say, this gallery, but then argue it CAN'T be used by the Boy Scouts that use, say a school building to meet in. Gay groups are allowed to use these buildings...and that's just fine with the lefties. But to allow the Boy Scouts or a prayer group use the SAME FEDERALLY FUNDING buildings is NOT allowed.
That's where YOUR censorship comes in. If you approve...it's okay...if you don't...then it's sure as heck NOT going to happen. But it's the SAME building paid for by taxpayer dollars.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 28, 2005 05:28:19 PM
LOL...there she BLOWS again.
Yes, helen YOU who is the one that has said it appears to you that it's ONLY the rightie's who can't communicate without all the insults....is proven wrong over and over.
helenjw - posted on March 1, 2003 01:46:49 PM
Conservative christian fundamentalists justify their greed based on their self serving interpretation of the bible. The fact that they believe that taxing poor people is moral doesn't surprise me. May they all go to the hell in which they also believe.
Helen
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 1, 2003 01:47 PM ]
THEN it was also YOU who called OUR country EVIL when we went to war with Afghanistan.
I'm just saying we certainly are in disagreement as to and what really IS evil and what's not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 28, 2005 06:23:35 PM
[i}"While I will fight and financially support our Boy Scouts that people like you are working to destroy for no other reason than they believe in God"[/i]
THEN it was also YOU who called OUR country EVIL when we went to war with Afghanistan.
I'm just saying we certainly are in disagreement as to and what really IS evil and what's not.
I have never attacked people here or anywhere because they believe in God. I do not agree, however, with the political agenda of the Conservative Christian Fundamentalists!
How do you explain the boy scout statement? Your thinking is so scattered from Boy Scouts to religion to war to the question of good versus evil on a thread that is about the question of art censorship. CRAZY!
posted on May 28, 2005 06:40:29 PM THEN it was also YOU who called OUR country EVIL when we went to war with Afghanistan.
I believe that the Bush administration is evil....the preemtive strike against a soverign country justified by lies resulting in the death of thousands of innocent people is evil. Now, the occupation and torture perpetrated on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan is evil.
posted on May 28, 2005 07:22:36 PM
A victim? So are we all victims or if you believe in what the government has done are you then a co-conspirator of sorts?
hmmm...Polnts to ponder on a Saturday nite.
Song!
Victim of Love
(Hear guitars!) then...
What kind of love have you got?
You should be home, but you’re not
A room full of noise and dangerous boys
Still makes you thirsty and hot
I heard about you and that man
There’s just one thing I don’t understand
You say he’s a liar and he put out
Your fire
How come you still got his gun in your hand?
Victim of love, I see a broken heart
You got your stories to tell,
Victim of love, it’s such an easy part
And you know how to play it so well
Some people never come clean
I think you know what I mean
You’re walkin’ the wire, pain and desire
Looking for love in between
Tell me your secrets, I’ll tell you mine
This ain’t no time to be cool
And tell all your girlfriends,
You ’been around the world’ friends
That talk is for losers and fools
Victim of love, I see a broken heart
I could be wrong, but I’m not
Victim of love, we’re not so far apart
Show me, say tell me, what kind of love have you got?
.
Thats it tonight.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 28, 2005 07:25 PM ]
posted on May 28, 2005 07:50:18 PM
As I said, helen, imo YOU have a distorted way of deciding who's 'evil' and who's not.
You've also called the religious right 'bigots'....think you can't just disagree with their political position without all the name calling an insult that you SAY you don't do?
I seriously doubt, even here in this venue, that many American's agree with you that WE were the EVIL ones' for going into Afghanistan after THEY killed 3,000 American innocents. You're in a tiny, tiny minority in thinking that. THEY declared WAR on us on 9-11...we didn't start it. No matter you taking their side in all this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 28, 2005 08:14:31 PM
Afghanistan did not declare war on us. Where did you get that? bin Laden is not an Afghani. He is a Saudi. Well, not even that since he was kicked out of that country. I don't think anyone here was against us going after bin Laden. They were against us going into Iraq based on a bunch of lies. BTW, Iraq didn't declare war on us. bin Laden wasn't welcomed there either and there is NO evidence that Iraq was working with bin Laden. It seems the two "causes" are being blended into one. Two different things: Afghanistan and Iraq.
posted on May 29, 2005 04:18:34 AM
Cheryl, you ever read any of yellowstones or the other guys theories about logistically and geographically there was a reason for the war in Iraq? Do you possibly think there is any truth to that at all? That it was strategically done?
edit to add: not sure if it was yellowstone that posted it, but that is what my memory recalls.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 29, 2005 04:20 AM ]
posted on May 29, 2005 05:07:30 AM
posted on May 19, 2005 12:55:25 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
********But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.********
The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record.
*******There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.*******
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January,
******with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.*******
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.
*********But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.************!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.
There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
crowfarm
posted on May 19, 2005 12:57:15 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Downing Street Memo, recently leaked, reveals that President George W. Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in summer 2002 and—determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policies—"fixed" the intelligence and facts relevent to WMD.
What has come to be known as the Downing Street "Memo" is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. This meeting was held a full 8 months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005. When asked about the document's validity, "British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity."
************The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was manipulated to sell the case for war to the American public; and how all the talk of "war as a last resort" was mere hollow pretense. ********!!!!!!!!!!!
Regardless of politics, all Americans should ask themselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
posted on May 29, 2005 07:24:56 AMAfghanistan did not declare war on us. Where did you get that? bin Laden is not an Afghani. He is a Saudi. Well, not even that since he was kicked out of that country. I don't think anyone here was against us going after bin Laden.
I disagree cheryl. HELEN did...she started a thread about us being the EVIL ones/country. The Afghanistan government allowed binladen to train terrorists on their land. No getting away from that fact...so their government ALSO participated in aiding and abetting the growth of these Anti-American terrorists...who then came here and killed 3,000 Americans - injuring thousands more both physically and emotionally...and their actions did tremendous damage to our people and our economy.
We gave the Afghanistans plenty of time to turn over binladen/AQ...it was their GOVERNMENTS choice not to do so.
I mentioned ONLY Afghanistan, cheryl....not Iraq.
According the HELEN...it's always OUR country's fault...no matter the issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 29, 2005 07:36:27 AM
Oh...You are back on your topic again...HELEN
I was opposed to war with Afganistan AND Iraq and I agree with Cheryl's statement! I was opposed to going to WAR to capture Bin Laden. Just as Cheryl indicated she was also. Many times I mentioned the need to use special forces to capture Bin Laden.
posted on May 29, 2005 07:42:20 AM "Helen, we know that Linda is a hypocrite. She is exactly what is wrong with America. She believes her opinion is all that matters. True conservatives would cringe to hear her spew most of her fascist hate, and some have made that pretty clear here. To claim she supports "good" and you support "evil" proves how shallow and uneducated she really is. Pay no attention to this imbicile. She is a waste of time."
Rusty, I think that you hit the nail on the head with that comment.
For lack of a more reasonable representative of Republican or conservative thought, the discussion here will be dominated by efforts to correct linda's personal attacks and gross misinformation. This thread is just one illustration of her unrelenting, dogmatic focus on personal attack.
Not many enjoy a head butting session with a radical rightwing fanatic as you can see by the number of people left here. Until linda tones down her delivery and shows some consideration for others, this place is basically history...She attacks me. She attacks Kiara. She attacks KD...She attacks Profe...She attacks Cheryl and she attacks you. No one with an opinion divergent from her narrow minded and uninformed view of the world is sparred. Crowfarm presents a constant target and right now is her only raison d'etre.
So, unless you feel like tangling with a mad dog, linda's constant presence renders this place off limits.
posted on May 29, 2005 07:44:54 AM
Oh but....helen...not too long ago we had a thread that turned into the war discussion once again. On that thread many leftie women here said they DID agree with the war in Afghanistan...just not the Iraqi war. So you are not correct.
Maybe cheryl could speak for herself about whether or not SHE agreed with the Afghanistan war. I'd rather hear it from her own mouth. But kiara was one who said yes, agreed to the first, not Iraq.
Believe it or not...you only speak for yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
edited to add: helenjw - I was opposed to war with Afganistan AND Iraq and I agree with Cheryl's statement! I was opposed to going to WAR to capture Bin Laden. Just as Cheryl indicated she was also. Many times I mentioned the need to use special forces to capture Bin Laden.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 29, 2005 07:49 AM ]
Cheryl said, [i]"Afghanistan did not declare war on us. Where did you get that? bin Laden is not an Afghani. He is a Saudi. Well, not even that since he was kicked out of that country. I don't think anyone here was against us going after bin Laden. They were against us going into Iraq based on a bunch of lies. BTW, Iraq didn't declare war on us. bin Laden wasn't welcomed there either and there is NO evidence that Iraq was working with bin Laden. It seems the two "causes" are being blended into one. Two different things: Afghanistan and Iraq."
Based on that remark, it's reasonable to conclude that Cheryl was opposed to the preemptive strike on Afghanistan. But I could be wrong.
