Posted on 01/28/2002 6:14:04 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Well, sure, fine; but we are playing for the undecided middle.
And this doesn't help us in our bid for the middle.
Bow down to the God called "Art". Another example of giving in to the left.
These are just aluminum statues - but just because they are statues you (and the left) call it "Art". One man's "Art" is another man's junk. If these are so much "Art" in your mind, who sculpted them? What other important work has he done to merit his work to even be called "Art" and not just decoration. You do know there is a difference, don't you?
If Ashcroft's predecessors had placed excrement covered "Art" of the virgin Mary in the DOJ, would you complain if Ashcroft removed it or covered it up? Why or why not? I mean, it is "Art" isn't it? Who are you to say it is or isn't?
Screw the left.
Problem is, this does NOT describe me. I simply think that a statue in a public place (especially government)ought to have some damn clothes on.
And this doesn't help us in our bid for the middle.
Thank you for summing up precisely what is wrong with the Republican Party. Instead of leading and showing people that our ideas and principles are better and desirable the GOP is instead busying itself with gaining power by appeasing the unprincipled and pandering to the left. By compromising nearly everything that is good and true, what is gained by having the Republicans win?
You're preaching party and power over principle again - but we've had this argument before.
I would like to see the picture on every front page in America, but would then pity those poor, churchlady-men, wrestling, as they are, with the beast of autoeroticism which they never tamed, wracked with guilt for sporting a woody at the sight of some old statue. The very same folks who foam at the mouth about the presence of naked savages in National Geographic.
They left me with an upbeat mood about the building, and by association the Justice Department. I like good art, and I note that the artist, Gutzon Borglum who carved Mt. Rushmore left plenty of bare female secondary sexual characteristics in the open in a few of his breathtaking sculptures he did before age sixty when he started his last great piece of enormous scale in South Dakota.
I don't want to go look at elephant dung, or jars of urine in some art that has been controversial lately; but I also don't want to see art become the commercial grade, cleansed product that used to make me want to throw-up whenever I saw Soviet or Nazi enforced standards present in their art.
No, I have a bad feeling about this, as I do about the art BYU had redone on campus to show historic Mormon figures without their beards because the students were not allowed facial hair either.
No, I think that statue was made befor ole Classy was born. :)
What is wrong with an AG not wanting to have a picture with a big boob hanging over him on every front page of the nation?
Anyway I disagree with you about this being art. Art is in the eye of the beholder and I am sorry but that statue IMHO, is more appropriate for Hugh Hefner's garden.
Oh BTW, not all of one artist's creations are masterpieces.
WASHINGTON (AP) – Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced federal indictments for public indecency and conspiracy to corrupt the morals of minors for the pantless, at-large terrorist known only as “The Duck.” A federal warrant has also been issued for The Duck, seen in the above FBI composite sketch.“We are doing this for the children,” Ashcroft said. “We can’t have them exposed to such wickedness. As it says in Matthew 10:351 ‘Get ye some pants on, son!’”
I see your point. Hard to tell which is which.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.