Democrats Proudly Re-Hang 'Art' on Capitol Hill Depicting Police as Pigs

[mdk]

It's funny watching the all snowflakes get triggered over the artwork of a high school student. lol

 

[easyt65]

Then the comparison is mute...

Only if people can't hear it......

 

[The Original Tree]

Democrats should be proud that they hate Law Enforcement almost as much as Islamic Radicals do.
They also hate Jews, but that is another topic entirely.

Considering that there are Jewish democrats, your argument is amiss...

Considering that The Nazis used Jewish Collaborators to Exterminate Jews, your argument is blown out of the water.
There have always been worldly Jews willing to betray their own race and sell them down the river.
Our own politicians do it to us, both Democrat and Republican, so somehow this is a surprise to you?
And since we are on the topic, please cite the statistics for your assertion that all Jews are Democrats.
We'd like to know how many Traitor Jews are in this country.

 

[PeterGriffin]

If I was Hunter I'd immediately be putting up "art" depicting the brutal torture of a disabled man in Chicago at the hands of Democrats.

That would take someone with someone with talent to produce it. Don't hold your breath

 

[Moonglow]

Democrats should be proud that they hate Law Enforcement almost as much as Islamic Radicals do.
They also hate Jews, but that is another topic entirely.

Considering that there are Jewish democrats, your argument is amiss...

Considering that The Nazis used Jewish Collaborators to Exterminate Jews, your argument is blown out of the water.
There have always been worldly Jews willing to betray their own race and sell them down the river.
Our own politicians do it to us, both Democrat and Republican, so somehow this is a surprise to you?
And since we are on the topic, please cite the statistics for your assertion that all Jews are Democrats.
We'd like to know how many Traitor Jews are in this country.

I never stated that "all Jews are democrats"... You are trying to create a situation which doesn't exist...

 

[Moonglow]

If I was Hunter I'd immediately be putting up "art" depicting the brutal torture of a disabled man in Chicago at the hands of Democrats.

You have yet to prove they were democrats.. How about a painting of the white guy sodomizing the black child , that had special needs with a coat hanger, ,?

You see it's done by races of all colors...Try not to see only one side of the spectrum of inhumanity..

 

[longknife]

"Democratic lawmakers put back on display on Capitol Hill a controversial painting that angered police with its depiction of officers as pigs -- after Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter personally took down the picture last week."

The picture is offensive.

The picture undermines support and respect for the police.

If a Republican had hung a picture as equally offensive to Liberals it would have been ripped from the wall and defaced by liberals.

And R-Hunter had no right to take the picture down....and now members of the Congressional Black Caucus (figures) and Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo, want the police to press charges against Hunter. Hunter responded by saying, “The Capitol Police aren’t going to arrest me for taking down a picture that portrays them as pigs.”

Painting Politics: Dems rehang controversial ‘pigs’ picture on Capitol Hill

Good grief....

The only real pigs are those Dimbocrap politicians who have had this piece of filth hung.

 

[Moonglow]

"Democratic lawmakers put back on display on Capitol Hill a controversial painting that angered police with its depiction of officers as pigs -- after Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter personally took down the picture last week."

The picture is offensive.

The picture undermines support and respect for the police.

If a Republican had hung a picture as equally offensive to Liberals it would have been ripped from the wall and defaced by liberals.

And R-Hunter had no right to take the picture down....and now members of the Congressional Black Caucus (figures) and Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo, want the police to press charges against Hunter. Hunter responded by saying, “The Capitol Police aren’t going to arrest me for taking down a picture that portrays them as pigs.”

Painting Politics: Dems rehang controversial ‘pigs’ picture on Capitol Hill

Good grief....

The only real pigs are those Dimbocrap politicians who have had this piece of filth hung.

Art is subjective to the perception of the viewer...It is neither right nor wrong, it is art...

 

[ClosedCaption]

separation of Church and State: sacred

separation of Hate and State: not so much.

One is in the constitution, the other aint

 

[longknife]

"Democratic lawmakers put back on display on Capitol Hill a controversial painting that angered police with its depiction of officers as pigs -- after Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter personally took down the picture last week."

The picture is offensive.

The picture undermines support and respect for the police.

If a Republican had hung a picture as equally offensive to Liberals it would have been ripped from the wall and defaced by liberals.

And R-Hunter had no right to take the picture down....and now members of the Congressional Black Caucus (figures) and Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo, want the police to press charges against Hunter. Hunter responded by saying, “The Capitol Police aren’t going to arrest me for taking down a picture that portrays them as pigs.”

Painting Politics: Dems rehang controversial ‘pigs’ picture on Capitol Hill

Good grief....

The only real pigs are those Dimbocrap politicians who have had this piece of filth hung.

Art is subjective to the perception of the viewer...It is neither right nor wrong, it is art...

There is "art" and then there is sleazy crap like that and it has no place in The People's Hall.

 

[Moonglow]

"Democratic lawmakers put back on display on Capitol Hill a controversial painting that angered police with its depiction of officers as pigs -- after Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter personally took down the picture last week."

The picture is offensive.

The picture undermines support and respect for the police.

If a Republican had hung a picture as equally offensive to Liberals it would have been ripped from the wall and defaced by liberals.

And R-Hunter had no right to take the picture down....and now members of the Congressional Black Caucus (figures) and Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo, want the police to press charges against Hunter. Hunter responded by saying, “The Capitol Police aren’t going to arrest me for taking down a picture that portrays them as pigs.”

Painting Politics: Dems rehang controversial ‘pigs’ picture on Capitol Hill

Good grief....

The only real pigs are those Dimbocrap politicians who have had this piece of filth hung.

Art is subjective to the perception of the viewer...It is neither right nor wrong, it is art...

There is "art" and then there is sleazy crap like that and it has no place in The People's Hall.

Is all you see is a cop as a pig? You don't see any other animal creatures or symbolism?

 

[Fueri]

separation of Church and State: sacred

separation of Hate and State: not so much.

One is in the constitution, the other aint

that's irrelevant, although I figured someone would raise that point as a means of deflection.

IMO, A painting of a similar depiction of a pejorative hanging there would not be tolerated if the sentiment had been reversed.

how would it be received, do you honestly think, if that painting depicted apes, or some other malicious racist symbol, looting Ferguson, MO, for instance, in the wake of the Michael Brown incident and that painting was hanging in that building.

point is, it seems that hate from some groups is tolerated, while from others it isn't and is instead labeled hate speech or the like. we need to get away from that and mete out judgement on things a bit more evenly and honestly if we ever hope to get to a place where an honest, constructive dialogue can actually happen.

 

[ClosedCaption]

separation of Church and State: sacred

separation of Hate and State: not so much.

One is in the constitution, the other aint

that's irrelevant, .

 

[Fueri]

separation of Church and State: sacred

separation of Hate and State: not so much.

One is in the constitution, the other aint

that's irrelevant, .

nice job. two words out of the entire post.

that kind of selective parsing and willful ignorance is a huge part of the problem, bud.

 

[ClosedCaption]

separation of Church and State: sacred

separation of Hate and State: not so much.

One is in the constitution, the other aint

that's irrelevant, .

nice job. two words out of the entire post.

that kind of selective parsing and willful ignorance is a huge part of the problem, bud.

You said something being in the constitution or not is irrelevant when talking about laws of this land. Fuck you want me to say to that?

 

[Fueri]

separation of Church and State: sacred

separation of Hate and State: not so much.

One is in the constitution, the other aint

that's irrelevant, .

nice job. two words out of the entire post.

that kind of selective parsing and willful ignorance is a huge part of the problem, bud.

You said something being in the constitution or not is irrelevant when talking about laws of this land. Fuck you want me to say to that?

i wasn't talking about the laws. I made my point and clarified it.

got anything else, or care to actually answer the point I made or are you going to opt to dance around the actual issue all day.

 

[ClosedCaption]

One is in the constitution, the other aint

that's irrelevant, .

nice job. two words out of the entire post.

that kind of selective parsing and willful ignorance is a huge part of the problem, bud.

You said something being in the constitution or not is irrelevant when talking about laws of this land. Fuck you want me to say to that?

i wasn't talking about the laws. I made my point and clarified it.

got anything else, or care to actually answer the point I made or are you going to opt to dance around the actual issue all day.

You mentioned separation between church and state. Which is in the Constitution. You compared something constitutional to something not constitutional and when told of the difference said "its irrelevant"

Then when mocked for changing your topic from a factual or legal one...you opt to use hypothetical and emotional arguments about how another painting that showed something different would be reacted to if it actually existed.

And you what? Want me to discuss you fairy tale emotional what if's to be "fair"?

fuck outta here stupid

 

[Fueri]

that's irrelevant, .

nice job. two words out of the entire post.

that kind of selective parsing and willful ignorance is a huge part of the problem, bud.

You said something being in the constitution or not is irrelevant when talking about laws of this land. Fuck you want me to say to that?

i wasn't talking about the laws. I made my point and clarified it.

got anything else, or care to actually answer the point I made or are you going to opt to dance around the actual issue all day.

You mentioned separation between church and state. Which is in the Constitution. You compared something constitutional to something not constitutional and when told of the difference said "its irrelevant"

Then when mocked for changing your topic from a factual or legal one...you opt to use hypothetical and emotional arguments about how another painting that showed something different would be reacted to if it actually existed.

And you what? Want me to discuss yoairy tale emotional what if's to be "fair"?

fuck outta here stupid

no, my comments at no point stated or implied that the display of this painting was in any way illegal or unconstitutional. had I tried to make that point, you might actually have a point, but I didn't.

you simply opt to ignore the point I made about the double standards which seem to apply to these sorts of issues, choosing instead to continue to parse the point to one that suits you better.

too bad, really, but indicative of the problems inherent in these types of discussions and why they generally go nowhere.

 

[ClosedCaption]

nice job. two words out of the entire post.

that kind of selective parsing and willful ignorance is a huge part of the problem, bud.

You said something being in the constitution or not is irrelevant when talking about laws of this land. Fuck you want me to say to that?

i wasn't talking about the laws. I made my point and clarified it.

got anything else, or care to actually answer the point I made or are you going to opt to dance around the actual issue all day.

You mentioned separation between church and state. Which is in the Constitution. You compared something constitutional to something not constitutional and when told of the difference said "its irrelevant"

Then when mocked for changing your topic from a factual or legal one...you opt to use hypothetical and emotional arguments about how another painting that showed something different would be reacted to if it actually existed.

And you what? Want me to discuss yoairy tale emotional what if's to be "fair"?

fuck outta here stupid

no, my comments at no point stated or implied that the display of this painting was in any way illegal or unconstitutional. had I tried to make that point, you might actually have a point, but I didn't.

You compared something thats in the Constitution to something that is not. Period.

you simply opt to ignore the point I made about the double standards which seem to apply to these sorts of issues, choosing instead to continue to parse the point to one that suits you better.

You made up a scenario that doesnt exist just to cry about a double standard that only exists in your story. Poor you. And you want me to discuss this new world you created? For what?

too bad, really, but indicative of the problems inherent in these types of discussions and why they generally go nowhere.

Smh@ you Hypothetical Harry

 

[Fueri]

nice job. two words out of the entire post.

that kind of selective parsing and willful ignorance is a huge part of the problem, bud.

You said something being in the constitution or not is irrelevant when talking about laws of this land. Fuck you want me to say to that?

i wasn't talking about the laws. I made my point and clarified it.

got anything else, or care to actually answer the point I made or are you going to opt to dance around the actual issue all day.

You mentioned separation between church and state. Which is in the Constitution. You compared something constitutional to something not constitutional and when told of the difference said "its irrelevant"

Then when mocked for changing your topic from a factual or legal one...you opt to use hypothetical and emotional arguments about how another painting that showed something different would be reacted to if it actually existed.

And you what? Want me to discuss yoairy tale emotional what if's to be "fair"?

fuck outta here stupid

no, my comments at no point stated or implied that the display of this painting was in any way illegal or unconstitutional. had I tried to make that point, you might actually have a point, but I didn't.

You compared something thats in the Constitution to something that is not. Period.

you simply opt to ignore the point I made about the double standards which seem to apply to these sorts of issues, choosing instead to continue to parse the point to one that suits you better.

You made up a scenario that doesnt exist just to cry about a double standard that only exists in your story. Poor you. And you want me to discuss this new world you created? For what?

too bad, really, but indicative of the problems inherent in these types of discussions and why they generally go nowhere.

Smh@ you Hypothetical Harry

actually I asked your opinion.

as long as we're playing the quoting game

"how would it be received, do you honestly think, if that painting depicted apes, or some other malicious racist symbol, looting Ferguson, MO, for instance, in the wake of the Michael Brown incident and that painting was hanging in that building."

that's not painting a hypothetical, it was asking what you think.

of course you don't want to address the point, even in the form of your own opinion, opting instead to play this protracted game of shuck and jive.

as I also said (and you also haven't bother to quote this during your voluminous c&p's of what I've typed)

"we need to get away from that and mete out judgement on things a bit more evenly and honestly if we ever hope to get to a place where an honest, constructive dialogue can actually happen."



it's pretty clear that the last thing you want is an honest discussion, hypothetical or otherwise, on this topic, opting instead to duck behind this nonsense.....