Now, there is overwhelming evidence that both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was a mistake of gigantic proportions.
After realizing the following truths..
We were deceived into going to war
There is no exit strategy.
We are running out of troops.
Americans are giving up their sons and daughters for a mistake.
We are stealing from our children's future by a war based on deficits.
We have squandered our reputation
How long is long enough to sit on the fence supporting a mistake?
posted on May 29, 2005 08:44:35 AMBut kiara was one who said yes, agreed to the first, not Iraq.
I said once they went into Afghanistan they should have stayed there and continued their hunt for Bin Ladin instead of lying and diverting to Iraq and killing innocent people.
Believe it or not...you only speak for yourself.
So do I, Linda_k. So instead of sitting here all day flapping your gums over what I said, how about hanging your head in shame over the lies your president said and then remember all the innocent people that died because of it and give them a moment of your time.
Now please leave my name out of your rants. Thank you.
posted on May 29, 2005 08:57:43 AM
kiara - I will bring up your name whenever I wish to.
I used it this time because when I previously stated that you lefties were against both wars, YOU were one of the ones to hurried to correct me...AND stated that YOU DID SUPPORT the war in Afghanistan...not the one in Iraq.
take a chill pill and smile...you don't control me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 29, 2005 09:06:07 AM
OH MY GOD!!!! helen says: [i]but i could be wrong[/b].
History has been made today, folks. In all the years I've posted here she has NEVER been able to admit to being incorrect on anything she's said. But now this is the closest she's EVER come to admitting there's the slightest possibility she could be.
THREE kudos for you helen. finally!!!
----
What has come out of this is we have given TWO countries FREEDOM. Freedom to form their own government...make their own laws. Both are beginning to do just that. And, once again helen, I'll remind you that no one in our Congress has put forth legislation to withdraw from either country. So, again, your anti-war position accomplishes zilch and is in the minority.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 29, 2005 09:10:59 AM
Evidently nobody read the article I posted where it said.
Today, one might expect that censorship can not occur because the courts have affirmed personal rights and freedoms, especially through the Constitution's First Amendment declaring freedom of speech. However, obscenity is not protected by First Amendment rights.
I looked up obscenity because Chicago had a mayor where an artist depicted a picture of him in panties and Bra. It was removed from the Chicago Art Institute and was removed because it was deemed obscene. I think that they are either Federally funded or locally funded.
That also includes comedians that have offensive monologs. They can be charged with being obscene and they have. They can be censored.
posted on May 29, 2005 10:15:10 AMI looked up obscenity because Chicago had a mayor where an artist depicted a picture of him in panties and Bra. It was removed from the Chicago Art Institute and was removed because it was deemed obscene.
Libra, it was not removed because the picture was obscene, it was removed by some African American Alderman because they found it offensive. It was not judged to be obscene by any court.
The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 1 that Chicago city officials could not raise an immunity defense in Nelson v.
Streeter, 1994 WL 25767, in which art student David K. Nelson, Jr., sued city officials for violating his civil rights by
seizing his painting on display at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and confiscating it. Nelson had painted a
portrait of then recently-deceased Mayor Harold Washington, described as follows by Chief Judge Richard Posner: "The painting, entitled `Mirth and Girth' and based on a rumor that doctors at the hospital to which Washington had been brought when he suffered his fatal heart attack had discovered that underneath his suit he was wearing female underwear, is a full-length
frontal portrait of a portly grim-faced Harold Washington clad in a white bra and G-string, garter belt, and stockings."
Exhibition of the painting evoked outrage from public officials; the City Council passed a resolution condemning it, and several aldermen went to the Art Institute, removed the painting, and took it away. Nelson's lawsuit is a political hot potato that the trial judge tried to duck by reference to a magistrate on the immunity issue, which dragged out for several years. Posner held that the immunity issue was simple: it should be perfectly clear
to any public official that they can't just go to a private gallery and tear down and confiscate a painting they don't like.
On appeal, the aldermen claimed they were acting as private citizens, and thus not bound by constitutional constraints. Well
and good, responded Posner, then you can't claim governmental immunity from suit! "Official immunity is for officials.
The court also held that the taking of the painting, although temporary, was still an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the court rejected the argument that all the publicity had actually enhanced the value of Nelson’s work, and held the officials liable for damages.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on May 29, 2005 12:06:33 PM
"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."
I'm not sure if this even makes any sense. You need to do a better job editing your English.
"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."
If an organization is excluding a group of people based on religion and sexual orientation, then they should be a private organization supported by their own money. Nobody is censoring them as you attempt to claim. In fact, to the contrary, I support the right of the Boy Scouts to exist, but if they want to use taxpayer money and resources, then they should also have to follow federal laws in regards to civil rights, otherwise they should support themselves like any other private sector should support themselves.
"VS....the left thinking this smut is a 'value' they MUST support"
Perhaps I missed something, but I don't think anyone said they supported "smut" as you implied. I believe there is a difference between advocating smut, and advocating for the right of an individual to choose whether it is offensive or not. Linda, as she always does mixes these two things because she has a shallow little mind that can't see past her nose.
"....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."
This is such a stretch of the imagination... because you miss the point entirely. What the liberals are saying is that funding should not be based on an opinion. Use of public funded property has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with civil rights.
"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."
Maybe you can cite an example of this, because I am not aware of this being the case. I'm betting Linda cannot support this with facts.
"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."
You're head is so convoluted with koolaid that you missed the fact that you are the one advocating this yourself.
posted on May 29, 2005 12:31:19 PM
I might add, Linda's use the Boy Scouts vs. Censorship of art makes no sense whatsoever.
The Boy Scouts exclusion of gays and athiests is against the civil liberties of all Americans. If they want to use federal funding, then they have to meet the Civil Rights Act requirements. To argue that they are being censored is plain stupid. They are victimizing their own organization by promoting bigoted ideology and then using that as a self-serving rallying cry. If they want to use tax payer property, then they need to adhere to the law, otherwise they are nothing more than a private organization that should support themselves and their own agenda without public support.
On the other hand, an artist has to meet the guidelines of federal grants. The federal government must adhere to the Civil Rights act in funding artists. There are no laws based on "opinion" that regulate what is decent and/or indecent.
Here is a great idea for those neocons who oppose art based on their opinion... Don't go and don't buy it. You won't see me going out buying religious, gay, nature, or portrait artwork, whether I find it offensive or not. Do all have a right to exist and be funded by our government? Absolutely, provided the government funds each based on equality of civil rights, not on the opinion of a few.
[ edited by rustygumbo on May 29, 2005 12:39 PM ]
posted on May 29, 2005 12:43:26 PM..and advocating for the right of an individual to choose whether it is offensive or not.
I disagree rusty. Speaking of the art in question, some things are very clearly morally, socially, culturally and ethically pre-defined here in this USA.
On what planet do you live where a straight man getting sodomized is somehow unoffensive to most??? Its rape in case you havent figured that out?
.
\spelling
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 29, 2005 12:48 PM ]
posted on May 29, 2005 01:01:38 PM
dbl- this is exactly the problem with your ideology. you are basing it on opinion. opinion is not the law. the law is very clear with regard to freedom of expression.
Secondly, art cannot be rape. i do not appreciate your attempt of desensitizing the act of rape. a painting does not qualify under "rape" because the painting in an object and rape is an action. Even when an actor is on stage or in a movie performing the "act of rape", it is NOT rape. So, dbl... you really need to learn the difference before you make such absurd comments.
Lastly, the courts have time and time again have ruled in the favor of artists, especially those who fall under the category of political satire. You should read up on court decision of FOX NEWS V. Al Franken to learn more about that.
posted on May 29, 2005 04:13:58 PM
Rusty, many a man (and thing) has been hailed or ruined in the court of public opinion. I was not speaking of the law per se, but of your cockeyed, out of left field idea that: I believe there is a difference between advocating smut...and advocating for the right of an individual to choose smut.
What I stated was about what is culturally predefined in this country as acceptable or not.
Given the fact that CBS and the superbowl was pulled down and out (not to mention fined) because the court of public opinion cried out about a 3 second show of a nipple, I ask you again: WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON THAT YOU THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THIS OFFENSIVE?
Now I suppose youre playing "lawyer" over here is a feeble display of your big fat ego. But it is an egregious error and summarily dismissed by me as just that. Ego speak. Because if you read my post, I did not mention "the law" anywhere.
I wrote: culturally, socially, ethically, and morally pre-defined. And yes, rusty, there is a santa claus. Thats why we have ratings on movies, which issue warning about sexually explicit material etc. Sorry you are so out of touch with any mainstream reality if you insist sodomy of a straight man, - a United States President at that, is not a "depiction" of rape, or is culturally acceptable to the people of this country. This is clearly not art, but a mere political statement marauding and masquerading as art.
I do believe the objection of the court of public opinion has been made, and heard, and the offending art has been removed. So much for your law gumby. Maybe next time if you want to write a dissertation to me you will be able to follow what angle I am looking at it from, and we can chat. But please, spare me the law crap
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 29, 2005 04:21 PM ]
posted on May 29, 2005 05:14:40 PM
"Law crap"... lol. If you want to give opinions, then you should probably expect people to take those opinions with a grain of salt. Some people will listen (like Linda) and more than likely regurgitate it as fact someplace like the RT. This is how the neocon faction of fascism works. It is propaganda based on deception and for the lemmings that follow it, that is all they need.
Now, when you want to debate the truth based on facts instead of opinion, then you may be mature enough to have a reasonable conversation. In the meantime, you may want to take a course at the local community college in Sociology.
posted on May 29, 2005 06:00:24 PM
LOL! Talk about the dumbest argument yet. I seriously think you one upped Linda with that one.
I would hope that anyone with even the most minuscule amount of intelligence would understand that just because a piece of art was removed by a government figure, doesn't make it legal.
Seriously... did you even think about this logically??? You should read the post by logansdad before you jump on someone with your biased opinions only supported by one stupid fact... that the piece of art was removed. That's like saying it is legal for someone to deface a Christmas manger scene because they disagree with it. There are legal procedures that have to be adhered to, and as logansdad's post proves, there will more than likely be damages paid to the artist and possibly the gallery if they choose to pursue damages from the county for acting outside of the law. But, no... we have dbl that prefers the vigilante way of rule.
posted on May 29, 2005 06:54:40 PMI would hope that anyone with even the most minuscule amount of intelligence...
yeah, like yourself of course!!
barf bag or a or a pass for me on this superiority rap-a-rap-shak jumbo mumbo gumbo shrimp brain offered here - it too boring and droll for my blue blood. ::eyeroll::
posted on May 29, 2005 07:58:02 PM
dbl- nice excuse for giving up your shallow argument. it is ok to admit when you've been outmatched by a superior intellect.
posted on May 29, 2005 08:03:25 PM
Uh, Rusty....I wouldn't brag about having an intellect superior to Dble's.....if ya get my drift....I mean... so does my cat....
posted on May 29, 2005 11:13:17 PM
thanks crow for straightening me out on that one. sometimes i get a little carried away. as i read your post, i thought of the neighbors dog licking its butt earlier today, and now i see what you mean.
posted on May 30, 2005 03:12:30 AMThat's like saying it is legal for someone to deface a Christmas manger scene because they disagree with it.
LOGIC?
Rusto-o-Rooter, actually, defacing property and the threat of future and impending funding being pulled from an art gallery, are not quite alike.
SERIOUSLY?
Logandad's post was about a totally different occurrence where the painting was seized. Idiot. Not the case with this story. But did you even read it or follow this thread? No you're so hot for an argument. You dont even know what YOURE talking about. (see below, read full story comment.)
supported by one stupid fact... that the piece of art was removed
Go read the full story of this particular incident, itchy balls. My argument buried you blind!!! That's how intelligent you are!! You be a real top-notch legal professional yes,sirrre,going into it without all the facts or even the actual outcome of the situation!lol>>>>lol>>>>
But when you got some full comprehension of it, do come back here for more duke and dilly pat's on the back with the other nincompoop over here. hahaha!!
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 30, 2005 03:15 AM ]
posted on May 30, 2005 04:54:14 AM
In the OP there was a few details left out unless you read the link:
The exhibit's organizers accepted the Bush painting into the show, saying there was a relevant political message, Buzzi said. The show includes about 45 pieces of art that generally make some kind of social or political statement. Another piece depicts Bush dressed as the Statue of Liberty and holding a tablet with a swastika on it. Yet another piece shows two American soldiers carrying a dead body into a car.
The entire exhibit was controversial because it it had social and political statements. It was not just one piece that was controversial.
Buzzi said the decision to take the art piece off the wall was a compromise. By the time the exhibit opened its doors, Yahoo! had been removed from its original position, placed on an easel and set near a corner of the gallery facing the wall -- away from the other paintings.
The picture was not removed from the exhibit permanently but rather moved.
A disclaimer, posted at the gallery's entry as well as read out loud by a guild employee as people walked in, was also placed on the easel warning attendees of the painting's explicit nature.
Again people were told what they should expect before going into the exhibit. They had the ability to make a choice as to whether or not they wanted to see this exhibit. There are a total of 14 galleries at the Art Guild so it is not like they were forced to see this. This is an annual show and the themes of the exhibit is to make people think about what is going on in our society.
Now was anyone actually seen a picture of the art piece that stirred the controversy before they judged it.
As my earlier post pointed out there was a painting of the former mayor of Chicago dressed in a bra and panties, while some may have felt it was in appropriate or distasteful, it was no way obscene in my opinion as some have said.
Here are a couple more articles about the exhibit from a different perspective.
If you read the above article, you will see that the person making the objection to the painting said "he never wanted the piece removed from the show". The above article also has a picture of the painting in question.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on May 30, 2005 05:08:51 AM
oh cheryl, how typical of you. Your bias is once again GLOWING ever so brightly. You somehow overlook and excuse who STARTED this....rusty did. Did you somehow MISS his 'butt lick' comment? Or his other offensive, off topic insults?
Yep...just as you ALWAYS do.
-------------------
rusty said: That's like saying it is legal for someone to deface a Christmas manger scene because they disagree with it.
No, the atheists and godless don't NEED to deface it....they just FORCE it's removal. Same thing as in Logan's post. Why can't THEY just turn their heads and look the other way as they ask us to do with the filth, smut, etc THEY so support.
There are legal procedures that have to be adhered to
Disagree there totally. Because you SAY there are these legal procedures...most times only the THREAT of a lawsuit is enough to convince a school, community, etc to remove WHAT OFFENDS THE GODLESS, because they don't have the funds to fight it legally.
-----------
And again, dbl, I'm sorry if my noting your strong ability to actually comprehend what you read is so superior to their's....but it's true. Twice now you have made both helen and rusty look foolish because they're not aware of the actual FACTS that were presented for them to read.
---------------
And yes, on my arguement of 'good' vs 'evil' ....I truly believe this is exactly what the American voters see from the left. They support all that IS evil/culturally negative while the Republicans stand for decency/moral values/God/Family/etc.
And that WAS the discussion the DEMS were having amongest themselves AFTER they LOST this last election. What were they doing wrong? They felt they had moral values...but hearing the public opinion, they understood they weren't seeing that from their party? THEY are now, especially, working VERY hard to convince voters they too have morals/values that side with the majority of American's.
Trouble is you can't fool the American voters....and the left's support for anything culturally negative ALONG with their fighting AGAINST anything and everything that HAS BEEN beneficial/positive to our society is CLEARLY seen. As we see quite clearly in this thread.
Smut is okay with them.
People with any sort of a value/moral system are wrong and can't work to have their previous support for hahaha "Art" removed just because they find it offensive.
Boy Scouts must be punished because they believe in God and don't want homosexual leaders, leading their boys are wrong.
Our government was wrong to go to war after being attacked.
We have no right to protect ourselves from those we believe are a threat/future threat to our survival.
The military is always wrong...no matter what.
But hey, hahaha, they support our soldiers. Yea, as long as they're JUST going to school - not fighting - 'cause the left doesn't believe in protecting our country - they want to TALK for 13 years and then KEEP talking.
Religion is a BAD thing...and must be removed...because their socialism/peace-at-any-cost, is the ONLY way to go.
Well....we all have a right to believe whatever we each wish to....but when you're asking just WHY your party keeps losing elections, losing seats in our Congress....take note...the reasons are there...you just don't see them.
hahaha At least ol' hillary HAS seen them and now pretends to come more to the center....more supportive of the issues the moderate righties are concerned about.
And she realizes you ultra-liberals could NEVER win an election...you're way to far left..radical..for the American voters to ever support.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on May 30, 2005 05:37 AM ]
posted on May 30, 2005 05:46:58 AM
Cheryl- I thought they were calling for sunshine today.....If they would shoot weatherman when they were way off base, maybe they would try to be a little more accurate, lol.
Logansdad- If the entire exhibit were of this "nature", and disclaimers of the possibility of the public being offended posted, then no one has any right to complain, imo. Just don't attend if you don't think you would care for it, and for god's sake, don't take young children.
However, Mark and I both feel works such as the "Mapplethorpe" photos are little less than porn, not completely "art". But, the public knew what it was "getting into" when they walked through the door to view that series of his work.
posted on May 30, 2005 05:57:06 AM
Cheryl, do me a flavor would ya? Can you find me one post where *I* have ever stated anything about disapproval of calling names etc.
Bet you will be hard pressed to find one.
btw, cheryl, those words look awful by themselves!! not words you'd use in scrabble or anything. ROFL@@@ thanks for the laff anyway.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 30, 2005 06:00 AM ]
