Painting of Cops as Pigs Hung Proudly in US Capitol

Assigning rights to an inanimate object??

What were you saying about IQ's over the last 200 years? "It" possesses no rights at all.

 

Is this one of the many wrong projections? I am not gonna cry about it. Many will like those crying about a painting.

 

You tell us.
Its not the feds.

 

You quoted nothing. You accused me a saying all liberals which is against the forum rules, and now you can't be man enough to admit you were wrong. Go figure

 

You can't see it? Really?

 

The people who have hung it have the right to hang it there. They have a right to expression.

Again, I get your fake moral outrage, but your argument is against the rights of the people of this country.

 

So like JOMV said, you are simply IMPLYING all Liberals are Nazi loving crazy loons.

Gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up BB!

 

No, you are still wrong. Hanging the painting is not a matter of "rights". Some have hung the picture, some have taken it down. While looking over the rules, it is believed that this painting violated the rules of the competition, and it will be removed permanently soon enough.

Too many people running around calling everything a right , and not knowing any better these days.

 

Blah blah. Guess youre against freedom of expression.

Not surprising, considering the source.

 

No, I am not...you're just living in Liberal fantasyland where everything is a right. You're just wrong.


Freedom of expression was not infringed. The artist can paint anything he likes, and display it anywhere it is allowed. Of course some areas it is inappropriate, much like expressing "fire" in a crowded area.

 

I can see your struggle with English, and the proper use of a object, preposition, or modifier

You lose this one Walter, assuming or implying doesn't work, it's total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The truth is, you won't find me saying, all, but that doesn't stop the ignorant from implying that I did

 

Some on the left defend this as mere "freedom of expression."

But it is my understanding that the very same Representative--Rep. William Lacey Clay (D-MO)--took umbrage at a statue of Confederate soldiers, and wanted it removed: http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/07/01/no-committee-for-forest-park-confederate-war-memorial/

Worse even than the hanging of the painting is the commitment-free response of the very same Rep. Lacey, who intoned, “I do not agree or disagree with the painting." (That is about like claiming, "I do not either agree or disagree with Nazism"--or with anything else utterly offensive.)

 

A wonderful point..."freedom of expression" only applies to some things, I suppose. Like the things that leftists want to see upheld

If it goes against their sensibilities however...well, that's different!

You people that like art that depicts police officers as pigs...feel free to hang it in your home and on your property.
In a public place funded by by public money however, that's for everyone and your so called freedom of expression doesn't trump everyone else's rights to be free from such incivility and vulgar idiocy.

Freedom "from" is just as vital as freedom "of" when it comes to the public arena. Grow up!

 

According to the DOJ, the police department of Ferguson was and maybe still is racist.
So it doesn't really matter who they shot. It's still is a racist with a badge.

I fail to see a connection between Michael Brown, and the DOJ conclusion of the Ferguson police force being racist. It is so, since the DOJ doesn't mention this case in particular. It's about the policy of the cops violating the rights of the entire black poor community.

The government can not display what is not part of the competition. Hence it's not my problem. Your rant has to do with a double standard. And there is no double standard since the government supports both pieces of "art". How about you take that into account instead of ignoring it so it fits your argument? Seems you must ignore this so far. Rather childish to be so obviously dishonest.

Ah nice. Now you see the US government backs up anti-muslim art, but this one is getting censured.
just the way right wingers love it. Get to yell free speech when you love it, and censure what you don't like.
To than claim it's just all fair.

- - - Updated - - -

That the entire police corps had racist policies isn't a lie.
And that is what this painting is about.

 

Yeah... but here is the thing:
Cops almost always get away with it, while the victims of them are dead.

 

source?

 

I do not see the big deal. It is a painting showing Rosie O'Donnell as a cop. What is the problem?

 

Oh it certainly does matter who it is that you want to use as a Hero, or rallying cry for some movement.

The same Black community that burned it's own environment down over Michael Brown? Evert stop to think maybe those people get checked more, because they flout the law more? Just a thought.

I have asked you more than once to substantiate this, you cannot. Why not just drop this falsehood, or show the Government backing the art you claim.

Again, this claim is a falsehood, you should drop it not try to build on it. Show us the Anti Muslim art, approved by our Government please. You're making this up to try and make some parallel that simply doesn't exist.

 

Well said.

 

Please post the evidence you have of that? And please, not your opinion

 

I'm not seeing the connection. I think it makes more sense to argue for free speech in this thread than the one about Streep. I've haven't really been following that story.

 

In response to the cops as pigs painting in the Capitol, a local farmer put a painting of Obama in his hog pen. (The pigs won't go near it)

 

Not unless the person who owns the nail says it can be hung on it.

In this case it violates the rules of the Capital and thus the rules of the contest. Down it comes.

 

It doesn't make sense for either although some think this and other such occurrences do. The Golden Globe could have cut her mike had they so chosen and it would not be a free speech or 1st Amendment issue. Certainly everyone watch could have switched channels and she would have no free speech claim. In this case the art must meet the rules of the Congress and the contest which it does not so it comes down, it is not a free speech 1st Amendment issue.

Do you agree?

 

"Ryan rejected the idea that the matter is a First Amendment issue, telling Gallagher, “his isn’t a question of First Amendment rights. Of course this young person has the right to do something like this…but we have rules that govern these paintings. So it’s not as if you have a Constitutional right to hang whatever painting you want in the House hallway in the Capitol gallery.”

Ryan quoted the rules of the competition that say that paintings cannot include “subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/12/d...sorship-over-anti-cop-painting/#ixzz4Vbau9NQQ

It comes down, NOW.