1 posted on
05/08/2015 5:14:54 AM PDT by
SJackson
To: SJackson
Scratch a liberal and find a hypocrite.
Every.
Single.
Time.
2 posted on
05/08/2015 5:20:29 AM PDT by
freedumb2003
(When things are rightly ordered, man is steward of God's gifts and civil law enables him to do so.)
To: SJackson
If they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
3 posted on
05/08/2015 5:24:29 AM PDT by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: SJackson
4 posted on
05/08/2015 5:43:02 AM PDT by
Iron Munro
(We may be paranoid but that doesn't mean they aren't really after us)
To: Biggirl
5 posted on
05/08/2015 5:44:31 AM PDT by
don-o
(He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
To: SJackson
6 posted on
05/08/2015 5:51:03 AM PDT by
don-o
(He will not share His glory and He will NOT be mocked! Blessed be the name of the Lord forever!)
To: SJackson
Since this is almost a complete rhetorical win, and has nothing to do with really winning, many people, like me, really don't care until activism really accomplishes something.
Show me some action that actually accomplishes something and I'll be impressed.
Too many just want a rhetorical win.
/johnny
To: SJackson
Anyone remember the bru-ha-ha over this painting of Harold Washington?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirth_%26_Girth
17 posted on
05/08/2015 6:49:50 AM PDT by
Ruy Dias de Bivar
(Some times you need more than six shots. Much more.)
To: SJackson
The quotes cited in the article concerning controversies surrounding art exhibits that offended Christians are hilarious in their condescending pomposity, a pomposity which descends into self-parody. Only highly-educated people can sound so stupid.
To: SJackson
The NYT and other liberals have a two-pronged response to controversial art:
1. If the art is offensive to Muslims, feminists, gays, or blacks, it will either be the subject of a tepid defense drowned in qualifications and sermonizing, or it will be condemned outright.
2. If the art is offensive to Christians or conservatives, it will be defended as an example of bedrock free speech, core Constitutional values, and the kind of thing our forefathers fought and died for. And - typically - there will be explanations of how the art is really not what it seems to be, i.e., that it is complex and subtle and uplifting, and that people are misunderstanding the meaning of the urine and the dung.
Thus, you can depict George Bush as a monkey or hang a derisive painting of a nude Sarah Palin in a bar, but a rodeo clown can't put on an Obama mask. You can exhibit "Piss Christ," but not Mohammad cartoons. You can portray Ronald Reagan as senile and stupid, but you can't mention Hillary's age. And on and on.
To: SJackson
I don’t remember liberals condemning the movie, Redigulous.
23 posted on
05/08/2015 9:31:29 AM PDT by
aimhigh
(1 John 3:23)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
