To the Right-Wing Automatons Who Value Bush More than the Bill of Rights

[stpauler]

@wolfstu

Are you sure? The article you linked says:

I’m not sure at all actually. The article also says:

ABC News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn’t like being photographed in front of them.

but then it says:

He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.

“The attorney general was not even aware of the situation,” he said. “Obviously, he has more important things to do.”

From what I’m reading at other sites:

Details: The Department of Justice recently spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues in the Great Hall. According to spokesman Shane Hix, for aesthetic reasons, he said, the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging. The drapes provide a nice background for television cameras, Hix said.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, Ashcroft has been photographed several times in front of the female statue that represents the Spirit of Justice. The statue has its arms raised and a toga draped over its body, but a single breast is completely exposed. The other statue, of a man with a cloth covering his midsection, is called the Majesty of Law. Both statues were installed in the 1930s when the building was finished. ABC News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn’t like being photographed in front of them. Hix said the Justice Department bought the drapes to avoid having to rent them every time the agency had a formal event. The drapes cost about $2,000 to rent. He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.

I’m guess that Ashcroft ordered the statues covered, but had no part in order the DOJ to buy curtains. If that’s the straight dope, it’s a very fine line.

[GaWd]

@Liberal

Bullshit. I can express my opinion just like anyone else. If the left-wing weenies want to challenge that opinion and make the whole thread about it, it ain’t because I told them to. Stop accusing me of hijacking, and start accusing those who actually do.

Stop hijacking threads Lib, it’s your MO. And What’s with the baiting?

If there is a thread ongoing about black american culture, and I step in and mention that blacks have smaller brains than whites, those who respond to the flamebait aren’t the hijackers-the original jerk is. You can’t blame everything one everybody else.

@Libmeister

@sturmhauke

I heartily agree. In fact, I’ve considered making a sign with “dissent is democratic” or something and taping it in my car window, but I’m worried about attracting bricks.

Lordy, I know what you mean.

And now you totally agree with the identical sentiment I expressed in my first post. Should I ask both you and sturmhauke for proof of this?

[Homebrew]

@Liberal

People should be able to express opinions based on their life experience without having to cite a web page that may or may not be authoritative anyway. When I asked why they demanded a cite of me but not you, I meant that their demanding a cite at all was jejune and Neanderthal in its conception.

You’re still missing the point. Notice I didn’t take issue with your assertion that it is manufactured bullshit. That may very well be true. You can point to artists and promoters who have staged events to get attention. You asserted that “left-wing weenies” would act in a certain way. Your belief that they would act in that manner must come from somewhere. A reasonable person would assume you believe that based on prior similar incidents. I asked for you to provide evidence that “left-wing weenies” have ever asked the police to get involved with art they didn’t like. By not being able to demonstrate that they’ve behaved in a similar fashion in the past, you’ve failed to show that your assertion of what “left-wing weenies” would do is anything other than pure speculation on your part.

bup provided a cite in this OP that shows GaWd assertion is reasonable, so that’s why there is no need to ask for another.

[sturmhauke]

@GaWd

And now you totally agree with the identical sentiment I expressed in my first post. Should I ask both you and sturmhauke for proof of this?

Hey leave me out of this. Just because my worldview and Lib’s may intersect occasionally doesn’t mean I’m his best friend.

[GaWd]

@sturmhauke

Hey leave me out of this. Just because my worldview and Lib’s may intersect occasionally doesn’t mean I’m his best friend.

Then I should have been left out of this, for that matter. But no, Lib specifically used my name at least 10 times before I even got to respond. FTR, my using your name has nothing to do with your POV. Just that Lib likes to call people out and then commit the same crime as those he specifically calls out.

Sam

[Liberal]

@Homebrew

You asserted that “left-wing weenies” would act in a certain way.

No, I did not. That is your mutation of my assertion. I asserted that they could be found to act in a certain way, namely, to be repulsed by a picture of a child playing with a gun. Past tense of “can”. Used to inidicate possibility. (American Heritage, 2a.) If you want a cite, I would have to show you something about metaphysical and epistemic possibility, and you might have yet another shitfit and claim that I’m hijacking the thread to discuss philosophy. If you think that the Bowling for Columbine crowd likely would sanction such a picture, then it is YOU who should provide a cite.

[Rilchiam]

@GaWd

As to why you are having a hard time coming up with examples of “leftists” who trample all over people’s freedon of expression concerning political satire and art-frequently, those on the left are the ones who are more likely to engage their second amendment and express themselves and their dissatisfaction publicly.

Psst…I think you mean first amendment rights. Second amendment is the right to bear arms.

[Brutus]

@Rilchiam

Psst…I think you mean first amendment rights. Second amendment is the right to bear arms.

Nah, he meant 2nd Amendment…

[Squink]

@Brutus

Nah, he meant 2nd Amendment…

How do you know it was a lefty that did that? A few years ago, some jackass used a semiautomatic rifle to blow the hell out of a ford truck parked just down the street from my house. Was that person a righty, a lefty, or just a Ford hater? I don’t think the cops ever found out.

[Brutus]

@Squink

How do you know it was a lefty that did that?..

Well, given the rash of attacks on GOP facilities, it doesn’t take a huge stretch of the imagination to guess the political bent of whomever shot this one. And no, I don’ think GaWd was adovocating that, just having some fun with the (hopefully) typo.

[mrunlucky]

I would have called the cops because the artwork is so ugly.

[GaWd]

THat was one helluva typo. I’m impressed that anyone picked up on it, and doubly impressed to see an almost witty reply from Brutus!

Wow.

Sam