Painting of Cops as Pigs Hung Proudly in US Capitol

"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/dem-rep-accuses-ryan-of-vigilante-censorship-over-anti-cop-painting/#ixzz4Vbau9NQQ"

What don't they understand about following the rules of the building? What example do they send about obey the rules and the law?

Who the heck do they think they are besides ignorant of the Constitution?

 

Yeah... I acknowledged that earlier. I don't necessarily agree with the Capitol Building's rule, but it is what it is.

My curiosity is piqued. I'll have to go have a look at what's going on in the Meryl Streep thread.

 

I don't. I just wonder why is that our police need to shoot 1000 people a year, and the British or Japanese cops maybe shoot one or two.

Of course, when you can't even convict a guy like Michael Slager, who is filmed on tape shooting an unarmed man in the back and then planting a weapon on the corpse, it makes you wonder about those other 999.

 

I think this is the hilarious part. They're so concerned "protecting" our police, they fail to see their own hypocrisy. It's hysterical.

 

Well you used that number and then speak of bad apples. How many "bad apple shootings" did we have last year, what percent of all police use of deadly force?

And the Slager shooting is still being adjudicated.

"A note Monday, however, said that “the majority” of the jurors on the panel of 11 whites and one black were still undecided. Jurors Monday had a number of questions, including why voluntary manslaughter was added as a possible verdict and whether the definition of self-defense for police is different than for civilians.

Newman read the panel additional instructions in response to their questions around 12:45 p.m. Around 3:40, jurors announced they were still unable to come to a consensus, and Newman declared a mistrial. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-slager-trial-jury-walter-scott-mistrial/

 

So you don't believe rules and laws and regulations should adhered to?

If you want to send a message about violence in black urban areas wouldn't you do better to send one about the crime and violence committed by the black residents themselves?

 

Wow, where have I heard that before?

Maybe the Libs will listen to someone like Ryan when he tells them the exact same thing as was said here numerous times. It seems some people today just think they have a "right" to anything and everything. You don't.

Constitution says no.
1A says no.

Painting will be coming down surely.

 

I absolutely believe laws and rules should be followed.

The difference between you and I is that you think those laws and rules only apply to certain people based on occupation.

I think it applies to all people.

I also think "reasonable" people tend to disagree that cops don't do things excessively. I think everyone sees this madness and wants it to end.

 

You also fail here, like everyone else. The state has managed through legislature to ensure its own are protected, and thus draft laws with very specific language and very vague pretenses so that agents of the state, namely cops, have a massive loop hole.

Thus, juries agree with the cops. They are instructed to do so usually by the judge's interpretation of the law.

Like always, the thin blue line cop sucker brigade is an abject failure.

 

You fail to apply anything you stated to what I posted.

But if you had you way what would it be, what change in the laws would you propose, and how would it have changed the outcome of this trial so far? How would it change anything?

 

Nobody in that painting looks remotely close to Michael Brown, is that what you're hinting at. It's obvious that this is about the anti-heroes: the racist police force.

I still fail to see a direct relation between the DOJ conclusions and Michael Brown. And you're ignoring your argument now. Besides that, people burning down their environment: that is how revolution looks like. Do you got a problem with black people ending their oppression of a predominantly white racist police force? Seems like you do. Awkward, no?

Don't act so childish. I'm not responsible that some anti-muslim piece of art was not submitted. In the end, your argument is that the government is hypocritical by supporting one, and not the other. And I commented on it, that they have supported anti-muslim art. And as it looks like currently,.. the US government supports only the right wing art, and when right wingers little feelings are being hurt they solve it by censuring things. Typical right wing mentality.

The US government was represented in the "je suis Charlie" march.
That had to do with the Charlie Hebdo massacre, a small newspaper who printed anti-muslim art.
With that, they showed their support. Obviously. Bit weird that you forgot about it.

 

What is the title of that news article?
Besides that... the painting won the contest. It has been hanging there for 6 months.

 

So, thats a yes.

You are a hypocrite on the topic.

You have freedom of religion, but not freedom from it.

Regardless, if reference to god was put up, even in an art contest not sanctioned by government, you would oppose it.



Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

Yet, other people dont have the right to hang the ten commandments?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

The painting was based around the turmoil after the Brown incident IIRC.

By burning down and damaging their fellow Black businesses in the area? Awkward, for me? No.
For you? Has to be after that gem.

Aaaand once again, you cannot substantiate this. It's is a made up claim by you. Typical left winger, when the facts don't line up with the argument you want to make....make them up.

Ummm no, the showed solidarity for Freedom of France, and Journalism. They never claimed to support the art, huge difference. And of course the real difference you keep trying to avoid, no art like that in the Capitol. never will be either, wouldn't be allowed.

 

and that's the problem. It is still being adjudicated. You have a case where the guy is caught - on video- shooting a man in the back, planting a weapon on his body, lying in his police report, having other officers lie on their reports...

And you still can't get a conviction?

 

It violated the rules of the contest so it never should have been allowed entry. It violates the suitibility rules of the building it comes down now.

 

Those are interesting facts and there are other facts. It is still being adjudicated.

 

Well yea I do have freedom from religion, the government cannot require me to be of religious faith or attend or participate in religious events or ceremonies and it cannot offer them respect under the law.

 

This thread has become so far off topic I'm surprised it still exists.

The point is that our government is endorsing a racist painting of hate and bigotry.

Millions of people are defending it and the only logical conclusion is that those people are racist bigots.

 

And those cops with their racist thug culture are part of it.

It ended and exposed that white "privilege" that was institutionalized by the police force.
Small price to pay.

It showed they fully supported France, and their freedom of publishing anti-muslim art,
hence showing they support anti-muslim art. Go bo hoo already, instead of ranting
it had nothing to do with anti-muslim art. That argument is just so stupid.. lol

- - - Updated - - -

Meh... the painting was crowned as winner, is hanging there for 6 months.
And only 1 fool complains it is against the rules. Nobody cares about his opinion.
So why should I?

 

Obama had nothing to do with this. It was congress. Try reading the article. It's also interesting to note that the headline is riddled with errors. No pigs were depicted. One cop was rendered as a warthog, another as (seemingly) a jackass. No mention that the black guy was depicted as a wolf. Also, it was not in the capitol, but in a tunnel connecting the capitol to an office building.

 

Are you talking about "The Death of Emmitt Till"? It is a great and stirring song I just discovered recently. Sadly, the same attitudes of devaluing black lives and excusing extra-judicial killings with false narratives continues today, as this thread clearly illustrates.

[video=youtube;M-0vClQa1Hw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-0vClQa1Hw[/video]

 

No, the president does NOT appoint congress lol.