Are you suggesting we’ve been woofed?
Makes perfect sense, really.
The more poisonous the president, the crazier his defenders are.
Saw the same thing going on back in the Nixon administration.
I’m suggesting that *in this case * we’re barking up the wrong tree. Of course, three women were recently ejected from a Bush rally for wearing T-shirts with logos expressing approval for the Bill of Rights, so anything’s possible. But the only source for this story is a press release from the museum, and I’d like to see a little more before I bite.
Every week, it seems, some idiot on this message board claims that a law exists when it doesn’t. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had to drill down to someone’s hysterical claims along the lines that the Patriot Act permits the cops to break down your door and search your underwear without even asking a judge. People have insisted that President Bush could be criminally prosecuted because “he lied to Congress!”
Seldom do those claims get derision here, richly deserving though they are.
Now this OP reveals that idiots come in all stripes; the family described in the OP evidently believed that something “demonic” or “unpatriotic” was somehow against the law. This belief, too, is richly deserving of derision, and I see it is getting its fair share here.
I would note that one of the claims apparently made by the family does describe an illegal act: no one, museum or otherwise, is permitted to display obscene material. Of course, given their other charges, it is safe to conclude that they were unfamiliar with the legal definition of obscenity, and it was thus unlikely in the extreme that they were reporting something that was actually obscene.
- Rick
They know it when they see it. Seems to fit the legal definitions I’ve seen. 
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh, you mean “morons.”
Is the president’s penis really small enough to be covered by that tiny hand? I thought the flightsuit images established that our president was better endowed than that!
cup != contents
Hey, thanks! Appreciate it! :rolleyes:
Actually I was just finishing the “Blazing Saddles” reference that andros (I assume) was making.
And again my ignorance of pop culture bites me inna ass…
Sorry about that.
No worries
Um… hijack… assuming he wasn’t a sitting president, he could be criminally prosecuted for lying (or perjuring himself, at least) to Congress, no?
Is anyone else reminded of that bit in Catch-22 where Colonel Cathcart goes, “Atheism is against the law, isn’t it?”
Heh. This goes squarely in the “Publicity you just can’t buy” category.
Indeed. You don’t want to misrepresent Bush by giving him a dick and balls.
Meh. The King of Soup is right. This is manufactured bullshit. You could get the same sort of shit-fit from moronic left-wing weenies by painting a portrait of a child playing with a gun.
Just to clarify, I was trying to point out, though I have no personal knowledge of this case, that the entire incident could have been staged by the gallery. It just doesn’t seem likely that a family bedecked with Bush/Cheney buttons and stickers would find an exhibit titled “Questioning Power Now More than Ever,” pay to see it, and call the police. If this family was what everybody here seems to assume, the natural thing would have been to organize a protest/boycott, which would generate publicity for them, not call the cops and disappear, generating publicity only for the exhibit. I also find the timing suspicious–the offended family showed up very early in the show’s run, when publicity would do the gallery the most good. I also note that the museum’s press release is the only source for the story, and even the outlets carrying it aren’t treating it seriously enough to make a couple of phone calls. The press release also plays with the truth by saying the Didriksen painting was removed from the City Museum prior to its current showing because it was deemed “offensive.” This doesn’t seem to be the case (follow the link). Finally, there is almost a tradition of drawing attention to art by playing up its controversial aspects, real or imagined.
I just wouldn’t be surprised if the truth were that the offended family turned out to be the gallery owner’s brother-in-law and a couple of friends trying to get the show into the paper on the cheap. If so, it worked.
Sitting president or no, he could only be prosecuted for perjury if he lied while under oath. Lying to Congress, in and of itself, is not illegal.
Often, testimony to Congress is under oath.
Can you cite an example of a “left-wing weenie” calling the cops over some art as you’ve described? No? Didn’t think so. Now piss off and take your constant tu quoque fallacies with you. You’ve overplayed that hand so often it’s making you look stupid.