Just Bashfull?
- Thread starter VoodooAce
- Start date
VoodooAce
Emperor
In the eye of the sarcastic beholder, even.
That site seems very biased to me. Still, it went in my fav's.
Originally posted by VoodooAce
In the eye of the sarcastic beholder, even.
That site seems very biased to me. Still, it went in my fav's.
I know, just giving you a hard time. Please be sure to site that source if you find an article on Ashcroft considering the use of SS Skull insignia.
The DoJ was spending $2,000 a whack to rent the drapes each time there was a formal reception in that hall (since well back into previous administrations), they will recoup the capital outlay is less than 2 years, even if they were not usd at news conferences.
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
Originally posted by atawa
Hmmm, one part of the bible, dont know what its called in English but in Dutch its called 'hooglied' is almost pornographic, they are going around the country ripping this part out next????
As a Dutchman, all I can say this is pretty pathetic.
I think it must be the Song of Songs to which you refer. It is a bit lewd, but for me, mostly amusing.
To be honest though, he should have just saved everybody's money and just been interviewed and photographed somewhere else. I can appreciate that he wouldn't want to be photographed below a giant breast with the caption "Who's the bigger t!t?" but to actually cover the statues up and at taxpayers expense to merely safeguard his vanity is ridiculous and inappropriate for a public servant.
Dear God, can you imagine the expense involved in setting up a new place to hold press conferences? Lighting, background, seating, reasigned office space, etc. If they did that we would be *****ing that the DoJ spent $150,000 just to move away from a breast, and asking in righteous indignation why they couldn't have just draped a sheet over it if it bothered them so much.
VoodooAce
Emperor
Well, I don't think its a coincidence We've, at least I've never heard of this before, I'venever seen that blue screen before, and this news story has just recently broken. Of course, someone will say they're just picking on Ashcroft, but I doubt it.
Maybe, on occasion, for whatever reason, they've rolled it out there. I don't think it was to hide the 'pornography' that is classic Greek art.
But now that the very religious-right Ashcroft
is there, it's being covered. I don't buy that it was an underling in the DoJ, either. I can very easily see Ashcroft demanding that it be covered because I can easily see Ashcroft seeing it as 'inappropriate'.
I still say Ashcroft is maggot puke.
Maybe, on occasion, for whatever reason, they've rolled it out there. I don't think it was to hide the 'pornography' that is classic Greek art.
But now that the very religious-right Ashcroft
is there, it's being covered. I don't buy that it was an underling in the DoJ, either. I can very easily see Ashcroft demanding that it be covered because I can easily see Ashcroft seeing it as 'inappropriate'.I still say Ashcroft is maggot puke.
Really?
I never would have guessed. We might as well drop this topic and move on. I'm sure someone in the Bush government has done something equally as heinous by now that we can discuss.
My position: Not having all the facts about how it looked, what alternatives were available, what complaints may or may not have been registered, and a dozen other things, I can't say what I would do about the situation. That said, I'm not too worried that this is a first step in a vast conspiracy to eliminate what is offensive to the religious right.
(And don't tell me its not the first, but the most recent either. I've already thought of that, chuckled and moved on).
