<< I seriously doubt "millions" was spent on offices, you are probably exaggerating >>
No. I'm not. They recently constructed a from-the-ground-up office building (Bldg 16). I don't feel like digging through all the pdf's to find out exactly how much it was, but it had to be millions.....wood paneling, floor to ceiling windows. Meanwhile, they have yet to do anything to most of the lab buildings, including the one (mine) that had the bigass power outage in the early days of the anthrax thing.
<< How is not funding something censorship? >>
Its why he wanted to cut the funding that is the problem. His stated reasoning was that it's a bloated waste of taxpayer money that should be done away with. First of all, this could be applied to just about any gov't institution as we have discussed, so why pick on the NEA specifically? Secondly, with any other group, the normal course of action would be to get some auditors in there and cut out the dead wood (I would LOVE to see this happen here by the way). So why still the insistence that all funding be cut? To enforce his own moral agenda...there's no other explanation. There are far larger offenders in the "bloat and waste" department (see rant about CDC facilities above) so why target the NEA first other than because some of the art they fund is deemed offensive or obscene. I would call this censorship.
Fausto
<< Ashcroft is all about covering up justice. This just happens to be a literal example of it.
Off the top of my head list:
Leading a "war" on terrorism that hasn't routed the real terrorists, but instead targets a sovreign nation's government that we just happened to also dislike. Say what you want about "harboring", but there were many many more dipolmatic ways to handle this.
Making excuses for bombing homes and Red Cross camps.
Refusing a U.S. citizen access to his lawyer.
Making John Walker a scapegoat because they haven't caught Osama bin Laden.
Refusing to follow Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war.
Many domestic erosions of basic civil liberties with the anti-terrorism bill he basically forced Congress to pass.
Before people jump all over me about being a liberal peace-nik hippy, know that I FULLY support bringing the parties responsible for 9-11 to justice. I also did not vote for either Clinton or Gore. I also think that Powell is doing an excellent job under the circumstances. What I take serious offense to is the trampling of the U.S. Constitution and international law in the name of Bush and Ashcroft's personal little "war on terrorism", a "war" that if you think about it can NEVER be won through our current actions because it breeds more terrorists.
>>
Did you have to have special education to become such a moron.
..and why are you kissing Powell's ass. What has he done different/better than Bush or Ashcroft?
Jesus, what do the Mods do? Put up signs saying "Assholes needed at AT OT".
What an unbelievable bunch brainless highschoolers on this board!!!
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
<< I would call this censorship. >>
Well thank jeebus that you aren't charged with educating our children.
Cutting the funding of the NEA does not prohibit anyone from creating anything they may believe is "art". Likewise this action also does not prohibit people from viewing said "art". No one is "entitled" to a federal grant to subsidize his "career".
If you don't know what a word means, perhaps you should refrain from using it. Bending it's meaning, for whatever reason, merely exhibits an inferior argument.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Argh. You're not getting my point...it's not about the baby, it's about exposed genitalia.
Someone said earlier: Breasts != genitalia. So what to do if someone is in a park and her baby is hungry and there's no good 'private' place around? Oh well kid, just keep on crying awhile. Feeding you will make someone uncomfortable because he is unable to keep himself from looking at you feed your baby.:disgust:
Geneva Convention: we aren't technically at war. Congress has not declared war, so the GC doesn't apply.
Erosions of basic civil liberties? Let's see, increased wire tapping abilities, pilots throwing people off planes because they don't like the looks of the person, more electronic surveillance, etc. Our freedoms are being slowly stripped away to keep the morons happy and feeling like they are safe, which they will only be if they go to a deep bunker somewhere with every movement monitored around the clock.
Clothes for a reason: they serve to protect us from the cold, from the sun, and from people who have too little self control over their reactions to what they see.
There must be a reason to prohibit something, right? You're using circular logic if the reason it's bad is because it's illegal. Most laws have their reasons.
People love circular logic because it is simple. That's why it's used so often.
Second, the anti-terrorism bill only applies to suspected terrorists.
Keywords there: "suspected terrorists." Hmm, I think that guy might be a terrorist. He fits that FBI description of a potential terrorist so I will go keep an eye on his house and his activities. (I fit that FBI description in many aspects. I keep to myself a lot, don't socialize a lot, etc) So there, the officer "suspects" someone of being a terrorist, thus warranting surveillance.
Someone said earlier: Breasts != genitalia. So what to do if someone is in a park and her baby is hungry and there's no good 'private' place around? Oh well kid, just keep on crying awhile. Feeding you will make someone uncomfortable because he is unable to keep himself from looking at you feed your baby.:disgust:
Geneva Convention: we aren't technically at war. Congress has not declared war, so the GC doesn't apply.
Erosions of basic civil liberties? Let's see, increased wire tapping abilities, pilots throwing people off planes because they don't like the looks of the person, more electronic surveillance, etc. Our freedoms are being slowly stripped away to keep the morons happy and feeling like they are safe, which they will only be if they go to a deep bunker somewhere with every movement monitored around the clock.
Clothes for a reason: they serve to protect us from the cold, from the sun, and from people who have too little self control over their reactions to what they see.
There must be a reason to prohibit something, right? You're using circular logic if the reason it's bad is because it's illegal. Most laws have their reasons.
People love circular logic because it is simple. That's why it's used so often.
Second, the anti-terrorism bill only applies to suspected terrorists.
Keywords there: "suspected terrorists." Hmm, I think that guy might be a terrorist. He fits that FBI description of a potential terrorist so I will go keep an eye on his house and his activities. (I fit that FBI description in many aspects. I keep to myself a lot, don't socialize a lot, etc) So there, the officer "suspects" someone of being a terrorist, thus warranting surveillance.
Fausto- I misunderstood what you said about offices. I thought you meant a re-decorate, not an entire building. As far as the issue of censorship and the NEA, I have to agree with Corn.
<< Erosions of basic civil liberties? Let's see, increased wire tapping abilities, pilots throwing people off planes because they don't like the looks of the person, more electronic surveillance, etc. Our freedoms are being slowly stripped away to keep the morons happy and feeling like they are safe, which they will only be if they go to a deep bunker somewhere with every movement monitored around the clock. >>
Finally someone with some facts instead of some blowhards repeating a headline. However I take issue with 1. The pilots were allowed to do this before 9/11 they just rarely did. 2. As far as surveillance goes the same procedures apply with respect to getting a judge to approve the wiretap, surveillance, etc. The scope of the surveillance has changed, IMO, to a more common sense approach based on new technology. It is an extremely delicate balance between civil liberties and the ability of our law enforcement establishments to protect us. My feeling is the Patriots Act at some point will have to be amended to tighten the surveillance requirements. Everyone feel free to read it to tell me if I'm right or wrong.
Well, actually the censorship argument is really a separate issue. My point in detailing the NEA funding thing was to illustrate how Ashcroft's religious views affect his political decisions. Censorship or not, I think I was pretty clear in my reasoning on this matter.
<< If you don't know what a word means, perhaps you should refrain from using it. Bending it's meaning, for whatever reason, merely exhibits an inferior argument. >>
Implying inferior intellect on my part in an effort to bolster your own views could be considered an equally inferior argument, wouldn't you say?
Fausto
PS: You misused the word "it's" in the process of telling me I'm stupid and don't know the definition of a word like "censorship". Here's a link to a website detailing common grammatical errors that you may find helpful for your next post.
<< If you don't know what a word means, perhaps you should refrain from using it. Bending it's meaning, for whatever reason, merely exhibits an inferior argument. >>
Implying inferior intellect on my part in an effort to bolster your own views could be considered an equally inferior argument, wouldn't you say?
Fausto
PS: You misused the word "it's" in the process of telling me I'm stupid and don't know the definition of a word like "censorship". Here's a link to a website detailing common grammatical errors that you may find helpful for your next post.
Nitemare
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 35,461
- 4
- 81
<< why is it illegal, and why should people be forced to carry clothes?
Aelus >>
300 lb 60 year olf women with varicose veins the size of crayons, with boobies dragging on the ground....enough said..if everyone looked like Denise Richards or if we outlawed ugly and grotesque people from going au natural it would be ok
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
<< Implying inferior intellect on my part in an effort to bolster your own views could be considered an equally inferior argument, wouldn't you say? >>
Actually no. The implication that a deception, either intentional or not, as evidence of an inferior argument is valid. Pointing out that deception only bolsters an already superior argument. In no way did I imply "inferior intellect" on your part, which should have been accurately reflected in the last sentence of my previous post.
<< You misused the word "it's" in the process of telling me I'm stupid..... >>
Once again I never "told" you that you were "stupid". Being uninformed does not equal stupidity. I only pointed out that if you were to brand someone a "censor", you should perhaps get a handle on what censorship really means.
<< You misused the word "it's".... >>
Yes, I most certainly did. Of course, my argument was not invalidated because of the improper usage of an apostrophe.
<< 2. As far as surveillance goes the same procedures apply with respect to getting a judge to approve the wiretap, surveillance, etc. The scope of the surveillance has changed, IMO, >>
That's precisely it. A judge is no longer required to approve a wiretap, merely a DA.
--Woodie <---searching for the pearls of insight in the muck of ATOT
The government wastes much, much more money. Remember how DoD spends $700 for ONE toilet seat? Or $600 for ONE hammer? Think about this... the building I work at part time has recently installed a new power-saving devices. There are now sensors installed in all offices, halls, bathrooms, and if no activity is recorded in 20 minutes, the lights go off. Before this all the lights were left on 24/7, even on weekends and holidays. That is 545,000 feet of florescent lighting in this building on all the time, but now they are much more energy efficient. I'm sure they save over 8k a month on energy production costs now, which means they 'wasted' 2.9 million dollars in 30 years, which really isn't bad by government standards. Also a few months ago a report was released that said that the DoD ALONE couldn't account for $10 BILLION for the last ten years. I am trying to find the link now.
Next thing, Ashcroft will order Virgnia to remove it's state flag.
The Virginia flag has a picture of the female warrior Liberty with one breast showing.
She Showing One Tit
The Virginia flag has a picture of the female warrior Liberty with one breast showing.
She Showing One Tit
I have to agree with MichaelD somewhat on the breast feeding issue. No, breasts != genitalia in the medical definition, but they are an erotic part of the human body (If you don't believe me, you must not read these forums very often. Many, many posts deal with womens' breasts in original settings that are not sexual/pornographic, but where the breasts are looked at in a sexual way.)
My whole point is the idiocy of saying that breast-feeding != nudity. Of course it is! Once again, if you define bare breasts as not being partially nude, then why do we have so many pictures, art, pr0n, etc, that all show bare breasts? I don't have a real problem with a mother feeding her kids, but I do think that you have to be ridiculously naive to believe that it cannot be looked at sexually by a lot of guys. (just look to Freud..) There's a time and a place for everything. If you're a woman and you're going to expose your breasts, its up to you where you want to do it -- just don't be surprised if you get a bit of attention for it.
My whole point is the idiocy of saying that breast-feeding != nudity. Of course it is! Once again, if you define bare breasts as not being partially nude, then why do we have so many pictures, art, pr0n, etc, that all show bare breasts? I don't have a real problem with a mother feeding her kids, but I do think that you have to be ridiculously naive to believe that it cannot be looked at sexually by a lot of guys. (just look to Freud..) There's a time and a place for everything. If you're a woman and you're going to expose your breasts, its up to you where you want to do it -- just don't be surprised if you get a bit of attention for it.
<< Being uninformed does not equal stupidity. I only pointed out that if you were to brand someone a "censor", you should perhaps get a handle on what censorship really means. >>
Okay fine. The definition of "censor" according to Webster's is: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable."
There, now even I know what it means.
I think that cutting funding to the NEA on the basis that some NEA-sponsored art is objectionable would constitute censorship. This opinion is furthered by the oft-stated "facts" about the NEA (funding of obscene art and movies, etc) that its opponents are so fond of bandying about when trying to cut their funding. This is why I consider it to be a form of censorship; cut funding in order to supress art which the legislators consider objectionable. As I have already stated ad nauseum, if the focus on the NEA were simply "You run your organization so badly that you deserve no further funding", and other gov agencies were treated accordingly, then I would NOT consider it to be censorship. I tried to make that distinction clear earlier.
It's not about whether or not I know the definition of the word, or about "deception"
....it's about whether or not the kinds of things we have discussed in this thread fall under that definition or not. I think they do. You do not. Opinion not definition. Fausto
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
<< I think that cutting funding to the NEA on the basis that some NEA-sponsored art is objectionable would constitute censorship. >>
Again, no one is "entitled" or has a "right" to have their chosen profession augmented by federal grants. The definition of "censor" by Webster only reinforces my position that your use of the term "censor" to villify the conservative element in our political system as "deception" is right on target. You have not proven at all that the intent is to "censor", only that material that is considered objectional by a segment of the population not be paid for by those very people in the form of taxes. In no way does cutting the funding of the NEA stop people from creating or viewing "objectionable art". Only that taxpayers not pay for it.
Do you also consider it "censorship" that the government does not help fund groups like the KKK?
<< ....cut funding in order to supress art which the legislators consider objectionable. >>
OK now I see, if the government doesn't fund something, that equals "supression".
No, I haven't read the entire thread.
The Great Hall of the Justice department is where the AG conducts TV interviews. Someone could use an interesting camera angle to try and embarrass the AG with the semi-nude statues behind him.
He is taking a proactive approach to the problem.
There's a problem with this?
The Great Hall of the Justice department is where the AG conducts TV interviews. Someone could use an interesting camera angle to try and embarrass the AG with the semi-nude statues behind him.
He is taking a proactive approach to the problem.
There's a problem with this?
<< 300 lb 60 year olf women with varicose veins the size of crayons, with boobies dragging on the ground....enough said..if everyone looked like Denise Richards or if we outlawed ugly and grotesque people from going au natural it would be ok >>
i suppose you'd want to enforce ugly people to hide their faces too then. Welcome taliban.
<< My whole point is the idiocy of saying that breast-feeding != nudity. Of course it is! Once again, if you define bare breasts as not being partially nude, then why do we have so many pictures, art, pr0n, etc, that all show bare breasts? I don't have a real problem with a mother feeding her kids, but I do think that you have to be ridiculously naive to believe that it cannot be looked at sexually by a lot of guys. (just look to Freud..) There's a time and a place for everything. If you're a woman and you're going to expose your breasts, its up to you where you want to do it -- just don't be surprised if you get a bit of attention for it. >>
that was exactly my point, people are so sexually repressed they consider nakedness bad. This is the same reasoning why women in afghanistan are forced to hide their entire body.
oh, and by your definition, a women showing her face is also partially nude.
Aelus
I wonder if the same no dancing, teetotalers who are supporting Ashcroft's people in this matter would have done the same had Janet Reno covered the statues.
I know that I'd still be bothered.
I know that I'd still be bothered.
<< Again, no one is "entitled" or has a "right" to have their chosen profession augmented by federal grants. The definition of "censor" by Webster only reinforces my position that your use of the term "censor" to villify the conservative element in our political system as "deception" is right on target. You have not proven at all that the intent is to "censor", only that material that is considered objectional by a segment of the population not be paid for by those very people in the form of taxes. In no way does cutting the funding of the NEA stop people from creating or viewing "objectionable art". Only that taxpayers not pay for it. >>
You're missing the point of his argument completely. It is considered censorship because the NEA was singled out because it is poorly managed and wastes resources when there are other government agencies/organisations that are even more poorly managed and waste even more resources than the NEA. The fact that it was singled out from worse organisations than itself is what makes it censorship.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter