I suppose if he had been under oath, or summoned to appear before Congress – yes. And given that people who are not President generally get to speak to Congress only under those conditions, I suppose you could further posit that if he weren’t President, and if he spoke to Congress, it would have been under oath or summons… and thus lies would have been potentially criminal. But since Bush was never under oath, no, his lies - to the extent there were any - are not possibly criminal.
Naturally, you didn’t make a similar demand of GaWd to provide a cite for “moronic right-wingers [having] a shit-fit if confronted by a picture of our fearwess weader portrayed so pornographically”. Anyway, here is one left-wing weenie bunch that would go apeshit over such a painting as I described. And you know that such weenies exist. You’re just blind in one eye and have uncontrollable spasms in one knee. What happened to you? You used to be nice. […shrug…]
WTF does a parent’s group that is concerned about violent children’s toys have to do with a painting? Do you have a cite of that group protesting political art?
The cite you give refers to a protest of violent toys, not violent art. They’re protesting material designed for children, not adults. Nobody here has argued that the protested art referred to in the OP isn’t unfit for children; I wouldn’t try to. The Lion and Lamb group does not attempt to restrict art intended for adults, as did the family outlined in the OP.
In other words, your claim that the Lion and Lamb group would “go apeshit” over a painting of a child with a gun is your opinion. It is not based on a factual protest, nor on the group’s website itself. Furthermore, I’d like to see some confirmation that Lion and Lamb is a “left-wing weenie bunch” myself. After all, the phrase “lion and lamb” is an obvious biblical allegory to non-violence, and (in this country at least) most radical leftie organizations are not wont to cloak themselves in Biblical imagery.
I remember when you used to be a guy who cogently argued his libertarian views, didn’t try to hijack threads, and refused to provide misleading cites. What happpened to you? [shrug]
Why should I? I never said they would protest it. I said they would have a shit-fit. Stop acting like such a dumbass. Asking for a cite that a left-wing weenie would be disturbed by a painting of a child playing with a gun is like asking for a cite that a gay man would be disturbed by a painting of a Matthew Sheppard being sodomized with a crucifix. And once again, you make no such demand of GaWd. Why not? I mean other than the fact that you’re a shithead.
Could I just speak with the head hyena, please? If nothing else, I’m flattered that you all prefer my meat to GaWd’s.
Oh, and I’m sure Homebrew will be by shortly to ignore your tu quoque.
Sigh once again, Lib responds with insults and non sequiturs.
Well, FWIW, the people were complaining about the whole exhibit, and not just the one that was in the article in the OP. There were more pieces shown in the link above.
Take for example GWB the Thinker which has a caricature scuplture of Bush sitting on a toilet and possibly reading. (Of course, we all know he doesn’t read the paper). On top of that, it appears he’s got nickels coming out of his head.
More “shockingly” would be (the possible NSFW) painting called Liberty Takes a Holiday which has a reubenesque lady liberty with her titties for all the hill to see nailed to a cross, a la Jesus, with D.C. in the background. (I’ll admit, even I gasped a little when I saw that and I’m an atheist with a stone heart ;j ).
From those two paintings, I could see where the people in the OP got the idea of “demonic, sadistic, obscene, and highly unpatriotic” from. Should they have called the cops? Obviously not. They could’ve complained to the museum or its board, or even a frickin’ docent about it. I didn’t see a mention of it in the article however.
IMHO, Art should incite a feeling and these pieces certainly do. (Everybody hide, here comes CandidGamera!!! j/k) Were these three offensive to a Bush supporter, a Christian, a plumber? Quite possibly. Ashcroft ordered a statue’s boobies to be covered up too. He’s an idiot. Just like the people that called the police.
Why in all that is holy is taking the piss out of a sitting prez seen and un-patriotic? Patriotism is about the country not what self important prick be he/she be on any side of the political divide.
Sorry this is coming from the second, third or fourth hyena, but you’ve gotta admit: it takes chutzpah to quote an entire post from somebody else and then state that you’re going to ignore it.
No one else uses that particular fallacy as much as you.
What you said was
You claim a tu quoque based on what you think “left-wing weenies” would do. I asked for an example of someone actually doing so. Unless you can provide that evidence, then your claim of equivalence exists only in your head. Furthermore, even if you found such a painting of Matthew, may he rest in peace, I doubt you’d find people calling the cops over it. Disturbed, certainly. Outrage, probable. Maybe even protest. But not calls to the police. Do you suggest that being disturbed or outraged or protesting are the “same sort of shit-fit” as trying to get the police involved? If so, then your sense of balance and proportion are seriously out of whack.
Wasn’t it Bush’s own team who claimed that by being the president, he essentially always under oath?
Not so far as I’m aware, although I welcome a citation to the contrary… but even if Bush’s team did claim that, they would simply be wrong. If no oath or affirmation is administered, and the statement is not explictly made under the pains and penalties of perjury, there is no legal basis to claim perjury.
You would have me believe that a group that admits to (and is proud of) going apeshit over children playing with TOY guns — not even realistic guns, but Star Wars ray guns — would not go apeshit over depictions of children coddling actual lethal weapons? And you piled on simpy to express that? And like the weenies before you, you would not hold GaWd to the same standard — only me? Ignoring it was the kindest thing to do.
I don’t know which is greater from that, the irony or the hubris.
Second time: I said nothing about calling any cops. Speaking of proportion and balance, prove that no one else uses tu quoque as much as I. Or do you only demand cites, but refuse to provide them?
I agree.
Lib - there certainly are nut jobs on both ends of the spectrum (and I don’t see anyone claiming that they don’t exist), * however* the question that was posed was in relation to “going nutso” about a piece of art.
having philisophical objections about types of toys and their suitability for children is a very different subject indeed, and one where both ends of the spectrum may in fact go “nutso” dependant (IIRC, there were some folks who just went ape shit over the “pregnant” type Barbie for example).
Lib: First of all, when I started typing my reply to you, gobear’s post wasn’t there. I was called away for something else, then got back to it. I didn’t mean to jump in after him. Not that it matters anyway. Being the second person to respond to a comment is hardly “piling on.”
Secondly, if you’re gonna call me a “weenie,” you better back it up. I have political opinions, yes, but I play fair here. I back conservatives and liberals when I think they are correct, regardless of my personal prejudices. Here I happen to think the conservatives (at least those referred to in the OP) are wrong, and that the “liberal weenies” in this case are right. In another thread, it might be the other way round. If you can’t figure that out from my posting history, then don’t persist in name calling.
Thirdly, I have sound reasons for holding my ground here. You claimed that “Lion and Lamb” was (1) a “left-wing weenie bunch” who (2) would “go apeshit” over a painting with a child with a gun. In the first instance, you have not proven that “Lion and Lamb” is even a left-wing organization. In fact, the only politician the group refers to on their website as a fellow traveller is Senator Sam Brownback ®, Kansas. Doesn’t sound very left-wing to me–Brownback isn’t in the same league as, say, Arlen Specter. I see nothing specifically about Lion and Lamb that would necessarily lead me to believe they are a left-wing organization.
In the second, you linked to a CNN article about a protest about toys. Toys are designed for children. Art (such as your hypothetical example about a painting) is usually designed for an adult. If, for some reason, a company or organization marketed a picture of a child carrying a gun for children, then certainly I would agree that Lion and Lamb would likely cause trouble. But for adults? Lion and Lamb’s website reviews, for example, the marketing of The Matrix, a very violent movie. It has no concern with the movie, so long as it is seen by adults–and, since it had a R rating, they have no concern. What it does have a concern with is the companion video game, which has been marketed to children, and carries a “T” (not an “M,” the video-game equivalent of R) rating. Stances such as this suggest that Lion and Lamb would have no problem with paintings involving representations of children and guns, so long as they were not marketed to or to be seen by children themselves.
Fourthly, the reason it takes chutzpah to quote someone else’s post in its entirety while then dismissing it is simply this: why bother to quote it? Why not just say, “Duke, I don’t want to answer you, thanks”? Did you read my post, or just hit the quote button?
Fifthly, if I have a point to make, why the hell shouldn’t I make it? The question over whether a left-wing organization would make the same kind of ruckus about “political art” as a right-wing one isn’t tangental to this thread. You made a contribution to that argument, and I countered that your point was flawed. Isn’t that a legitimate debating tactic?
Lastly–oh hell, are you even reading this any more? If you are, listen up: I was once a libertarian too. I attended meetings of the Institute of Humane Studies and its UK counterpart for years, at one point even working as an IHS Scholar. What happened to me? I got sick of people like you cramming ideas down my throat, hijacking every conversation I had into an anti-government rant, and in general eschewing content for bandwidth. In short, your schtick is tiresome, and I’ve heard it all before. This board was a better place when you weren’t here. Good day.
For more on John Aaron and his mission to bring political art to the people, see:
http://www.gwhatchet.com/news/2004/09/16/Arts/Art-Youre.Not.Supposed.To.See-720746.shtml
Mr. Aaron is a pretty funny guy, with an apparent propensity for accidentally losing or breaking his own creations. Read some of his stories here:
It takes no hubris and shows no irony.
Alright. It seems to me that noone uses that particular fallacy as much as you. It seems that far too many of your posts in theads knocking Bush or the Republicans are essentially drive-bys from you shouting “but you Dems do it too”. And far too often, as in this case, you pick incidents wildly out of proportion for the comparison.
I’m not going to waste much of my time looking for thread after thread that you do this. That’s an exercise for someone far more patient than I. I’ll start you off, though.