User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 8:45:37 AM EDT
[#1]
[yawn]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 8:53:23 AM EDT
[#2]
Ashcroft is unconfortable being photographed with naked statues. What a flake. I find that to be completely rediculous and somewhat embarasing. Is it an issue that will affecy anything? No. Is it stupid? Yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 9:04:19 AM EDT
[#3]
You have got to be kidding me, welcom to the 21st century.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 9:14:20 AM EDT
[#4]
I was driving up I-5 when I first heard this on the radio; almost ran off the road due to laughing so hard. Let's see, demos want a pervert in every classroom and the reps want to make believe the human body is evil. Sad world!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 9:20:32 AM EDT
[#5]
Actually, the whole story is a non-event. Ashcroft had nothing to do with this.
What REALLY happened is, drapes are OFTEN rented for news conferences because the statues make a distracting background and blue draperies make a better picture for TV cameras. It can cost up to $2000 to rent the drapes. Some enterprising fellow at the DOJ (not Ashcroft) decided to spend $8000 ONCE and buy the drapes, thereby saving money. But of course, all the vultures jumped on it...and a lot of people were stupid enough to buy their spin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 9:29:40 AM EDT
[#6]
If the curtains are for the benefit of the TV crews, then shouldn't the TV stations be the ones paying for them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 10:04:54 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Ashcroft is unconfortable being photographed with naked statues. What a flake. I find that to be completely rediculous and somewhat embarasing. Is it an issue that will affecy anything? No. Is it stupid? Yes. Hey Dopey - Read the article -Ashcroft had NOTHING to do with it. It was a fiscal decision. They paid $8,000 for curtains that cost $2,000 every time they rented them. They'll make their money back in a year or two. Never fear - your "Constitutional right" to lick porn pics and hump anything you want is safe from the big, bad Ashcroft. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 10:16:54 AM EDT
[#8]
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just hold the press conferences elsewhere?
Those statues are not "porn". Nude statues, of that style, reflect the neo-classical themes that can be found all over the Capitol. Neo-Classical art honors the very foundation of Western Civilization. I hope this has nothing to do with someone being uncomfortable with old nude statues. That would be silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 10:23:05 AM EDT
[#9]
God, what idiot pays $8,000 for drapes. Just go down to Wal-Mart and buy the fabric for a few dollars. No need to spend $8,000. Much less, rent them for $2,000.
Government waste. And you wonder where your tax dollars go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 10:29:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Seems to me that we have a Taliban type leader who is refusing to appear in public with "Justice and Freedom" (the statues names)... just cover them up and they don't exist (like rights). Hummmm.... I wonder if Ashcroft is sending his "agents" or followers out across our country to enforce his perverted view of religious rights.
Do his agents have uniforms, carry their weapons in sight and wear symbols of their rank?? What country is going to step in and save us from the religious fanatics who are destroying our past symbols of freedom and justice??? Seems that we have adapted the tactics of those who would oppress us... guess we have met the enemy and it is us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 10:43:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Pipe down, troll.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 10:51:51 AM EDT
[#12]
Im surprised they could pry Reno off of them long enough to put drapes over them...or Shalala her close friend either for that matter imo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 11:33:11 AM EDT
[#13]
Hey Dopey - Read the article -Ashcroft had NOTHING to do with it. It was a fiscal decision. [rolleyes] Hey Garandass FUCK YOU! [:(!] I am sick of your condescending fucking attitude. [rolleyes] You obviously cant read. "ABC News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them." Quoted from the article. I'll give you an opportunity to apoligize for the personal attack on my character. Your name calling has pissed me off as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 11:45:21 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: You obviously cant read. "ABC News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them." Quoted from the article. [b]FROM THE ARTICLE - [/b] [i]Shane Hix said the Justice Department bought the drapes to avoid having to rent them every time the agency had a formal event. The drapes cost about $2,000 to rent. He also said Ashcroft was not involved in the decision.[/i] Oh, I can read. I just choose to beleive the Justice Dept. over ABC News. You know, one of the news organizations so committed to truth telling that they depict both you and me as psychopathic, insane, lunatic fringe types simply because we support teh ENTIRE Constitution. Apaprently, you choose to beleive ABC news. Why you do that escapes me. I'll give you an opportunity to apoligize for the personal attack on my character. Your name calling has pissed me off as well. If you are referring to the "porn pic licking" and "humping" reference, I'll apologize for that. It was a bit over the top. I had thought it was obvious hyperbole re: those who like to depict Ashcroft as a sexually oppressed nerd who wants to put a gov't camera in your bedroom. But it is slowly becoming obvious to me that NOTHING is obvious to some people 'round here. SEE?? this is how insulting is done SANS profanity and vulgarity. Try it sometime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 11:50:12 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: ...I just choose to beleive the Justice Dept. over ABC News. ...... Apparently, you choose to beleive ABC news. Why you do that escapes me. Imagine hearing yourself say that during the Reno Justice Dept.... [:)] Perhaps this is a lesson. Regardless of the topic, when one speaks in isnults, sarcasm and profanity, one tends to piss people off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 11:56:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Garandman,
I am civil to all I deal with. You on the otherhand deserve nothing like a reasoned thought out insult. That would be a waste of good time. I prefer a quick and to the point method with you. I don't like you. I wouldn't piss on your head if your hair was on fire. We have 1 thing in common. 2nd amendment rights. There may be more, but I'd rather not spend the time investigating them. It wasn't personal before. It is now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 11:56:58 AM EDT
[#17]
Maybe for a small fee they could be removed, they would make great artwork at the grand entrance to some mansion. I'll be ole Hugh could use 'em.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 11:57:33 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Perhaps this is a lesson. Regardless of the topic, when one speaks in isnults, sarcasm and profanity, one tends to piss people off. True. But insults are about the only thing I've found that gets thru to those who like to unfairly demonize good men like John Ashcroft. It was a judgment call. YMMV. Besides, in spite of teh profanity and vulgarity hurled at me, I was NOT "pissed off." Mildly amused perhaps, but not PO'd. (If I had a dollar for every curse word sent my way on here, I could afford to buy everyones affection here with a new AR for every member. An Armalite too, not one of them cheap Oly's [:D] ) ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:00:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Garandman, I am civil to all I deal with. You on the otherhand deserve nothing like a reasoned thought out insult. That would be a waste of good time. I prefer a quick and to the point method with you. I don't like you. I wouldn't piss on your head if your hair was on fire. We have 1 thing in common. 2nd amendment rights. There may be more, but I'd rather not spend the time investigating them. It wasn't personal before. It is now. Well, isn't that special. You asked for an apology. You got one. You're still mad. Why try to appease you further?? have a nice life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:07:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Actually, one other point DOES need to be addressed.
What does,,,, Quoted: Garandman, It wasn't personal before. It is now. ...mean??? Do I need to get additional personal protection??? [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:11:35 PM EDT
[#21]
It's simply amazing to me how supposed gun-rights advocates can believe any left wing attack made on one of the most pro-gun Attorneys General we have ever had.
Mind-boggling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:27:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: It's simply amazing to me how supposed gun-rights advocates can believe any left wing attack made on one of the most pro-gun Attorneys General we have ever had. Mind-boggling. No doubt. When the people who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in. At least, that's true for gun rights. Apparently, others tend to beleive those who hate what they beleive. Who knows why. Well said, RikW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:29:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Do I need to get additional personal protection??? [rolleyes] You really think you rate such action on my part? That's funny. Had you said what you did to my face, there would have been an incedent. You didn't as you do seem to be an internet comando. I can assure you that you have one less ally in anything you stand for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:33:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: It's simply amazing to me how supposed gun-rights advocates can believe any left wing attack made on one of the most pro-gun Attorneys General we have ever had. Mind-boggling. This is not a gun rights issue. I do think Ashcroft is a great defender of gun rights, however this is in my opinion indicative of the other issues we will face in the years to come. If the guy is embarased by a 70 year old piece of art, what else will turn his face red? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:34:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: When the people who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in. Believe it or not, I believe whoever is telling the TRUTH, regardless of their "beliefs". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:35:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Originally by garandman: Do I need to get additional personal protection??? [rolleyes] You really think you rate such action on my part? That's funny. Had you said what you did to my face, there would have been an incedent. When you calm down, you will see an glaring contradiction in your two statements immediately above. I can assure you that you have one less ally in anything you stand for. Whatever. I can assume then since I am pro-gun, you are going to turn anti-gun, since I ain't changin' what I beleive on account of you. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHA g-man out, gun-fan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:41:51 PM EDT
[#27]
G-man,
Actually you have a point there. We still agree about the 2nd amendment. As to the contradiction, My point is that I'm not gonna hunt you down and kill you, but if you had said it in person, you would be nursing some wounds. Right or wrong win or lose I'd have done it. Simple really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:42:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: When the people who hate what I beleive in attack others who beleive in what I beleive in, my inclination is to NOT beleive those who hate what I beleive in. Believe it or not, I believe whoever is telling the TRUTH, regardless of their "beliefs". Once the full truth be known, so do I. Until then, see my statement above. Stated another way, I tend to beleive my friends BEFORE I believe my enemies. You too, I presume???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:47:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: G-man, Actually you have a point there. We still agree about the 2nd amendment. As to the contradiction, My point is that I'm not gonna hunt you down and kill you, but if you had said it in person, you would be nursing some wounds. Right or wrong win or lose I'd have done it. Simple really. You are MORE than free to try. But, attempting civil discussion, WHY do you choose to beleive ABC's charachterization of Ashcroft wanting to cover up boobies when the Justice Dept spokesman has CLEARLY said Ashcroft had NOTHING to do with the decision. It makes NO sense that Ashcroft would fight for your Second Amendment rights, and then violate your Constitutional rights elsewhere. In fighting for your RKBA, he's given you the ability to KILL HIM (obvious hyperbole) if you beleive he's violating your other Constitutional rights. ABC hates you. Ashcroft fights for your gun rights. Why do you beleive ABC over Ashcroft's Justice Dept??? Why???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:50:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: [yawn] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:52:08 PM EDT
[#31]
So, how 'bout them Red Wings?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 12:58:31 PM EDT
[#32]
But, attempting civil discussion, WHY do you choose to beleive ABC's charachterization of Ashcroft wanting to cover up boobies when the Justice Dept spokesman has CLEARLY said Ashcroft had NOTHING to do with the decision. Simple. It is an embarasment to him. He can just tell his press secretary to say he had nthing to do with it. That makes it a fact to you. I don't believe everything the Government tells me. You apparently chose to swallow it all regardless just because he is pro 2nd. You chose not to believe anything the Klinton admin had to say or at least took it with a grain of salt. There is really not that much difference here. Don't try your usual BS trying to spin me as a Klintonista here. I'm just saying these guys will lie to you just as easily. There is no party with a monopoly on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:04:55 PM EDT
[#33]
For sake of arguement. Lets say this is simply a fiscal descision to buy vs rent these drapes. Then why are they left hanging now as opposed to only when there is a "Formal Event" as stated in the article? I guess you really believe that there are fiscally responsible people up in DC & they don't want to have workmen putting up and removing those drapes all the time.
To borrow an overused icon: [rolleyes] Yeah right... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:07:45 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: But, attempting civil discussion, WHY do you choose to beleive ABC's charachterization of Ashcroft wanting to cover up boobies when the Justice Dept spokesman has CLEARLY said Ashcroft had NOTHING to do with the decision. Simple. It is an embarasment to him. He can just tell his press secretary to say he had nthing to do with it. I'm just saying these guys will lie to you just as easily. There is no party with a monopoly on that. Please give me some evidence as to these charges against Mr. Ashcroft. You have NO evidence that Ashcroft would lie about this. We all know ABC lies about any number of things. So, you choose to side with teh KNOWN AND PROVEN liars. Barring some substantial evidence, I'll just consider it slander on your part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:25:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: This is not a gun rights issue. I do think Ashcroft is a great defender of gun rights, however this is in my opinion indicative of the other issues we will face in the years to come. If the guy is embarased by a 70 year old piece of art, what else will turn his face red? The thing is, YOU are the one swallowing this story whole...I am not. I do not believe for one minute that Ashcroft ordered those drapes because he was embarrassed by the statues. I find it MUCH more plausible that some staffer bought them in a fiscal move. The drapes have been hung there for YEARS...this is a blatant attempt by the left to smear him. The only surprising thing is how many pro-gun people are buying it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:34:40 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Barring some substantial evidence, I'll just consider it slander on your part. Consider it what you will. You asked why I chose to believe this. I told you. As to charges? I hardly think this qualifies as a charge against Ashcroft. There is no crime here. Merely an opinion that he has made a mistake. You again try cast aspersions on me with the "KNOWN AND PROVEN liars" line. Typical of your style. You time and again try to charachterize anyone that disagrees with you as some type of evil. Nice try. Yet you totaly disregard my other post where I try to play devils advocate. It amazes me that you continue to try this tactic, yet I have seen posts where you call that the same tactic as the anti's use. I have come to the conclusion after many months of posting and reading here on this site that you are little more than a hypocrite. You really should do a little more listening at church and learn some behavioral lessons. Yeah, you quote scripture, but you really don't know what they mean... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2002 1:37:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: I have come to the conclusion after many months of posting and reading here on this site that you are little more than a hypocrite. You really should do a little more listening at church and learn some behavioral lessons. Yeah, you quote scripture, but you really don't know what they mean... Ouch. [:D] I guess it IS personal with you. [}:D] |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
