• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

D.C. Sued over Black Lives Matter Painted on City Streets

trouble13 said:
So you support their right to display their slogan because you agree with it. What if you didnt agree with it, would you still defend their right to display it?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It’s hard to argue with the notions of “black lives matter” and “no one is above the law.” If the city in question can wants to display those notions, fine. But let’s get real: we are talking about a particular moment in time -this moment- where we have become more conscious of the flaws in our law enforcement. The reaction to Floyd’s killing will naturally bring about excesses, excuses, and evasions. Will painting “black lives matter” on the street solve the issue? Probably not, but in our grief, anger and frustration we are groping towards what we assume are meaningful gestures, perhaps mistaking them for solutions.
 
Nickyjo said:
It’s hard to argue with the notions of “black lives matter” and “no one is above the law.” If the city in question can wants to display those notions, fine. But let’s get real: we are talking about a particular moment in time -this moment- where we have become more conscious of the flaws in our law enforcement. The reaction to Floyd’s killing will naturally bring about excesses, excuses, and evasions. Will painting “black lives matter” on the street solve the issue? Probably not, but in our grief, anger and frustration we are groping towards what we assume are meaningful gestures, perhaps mistaking them for solutions.
Click to expand...
Lets call it what it was. It was a political stunt and it was meant as a jab at Trump and his supporters. I dont like it but I respect they did it with legal permission by the mayor. Now that she has opened the door she needs to tolerate the same stuff back. I dont see how the courts can not rule that way unless they break with decades of precedence on these type of questions.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
haymarket said:
Yes, the owners of the street in DC authorized it.
Click to expand...

Who were the owners of the street? Was it a private entity? You're about to own yourself and it's hilarious.
 
lurchadams said:
I do! I love your posts, Fish! You should be kinder to yourself!
Click to expand...

"I know you are but what am I?" is your response? That's precious.
 
For those interested in the racism allegation, Larry klayman, who founded judicial watch, was a birther who sued to have obama deported.

Can anyone postulate a non racist reason to question Obama's birthplace?

Larry Klayman - Wikipedia
 
Fishking said:
Who were the owners of the street? Was it a private entity? You're about to own yourself and it's hilarious.
Click to expand...

The people responsible by law for its upkeep, maintenance and care - in the case of Washington D.C. - it would be the government of that area... the city.
 
Airyaman said:
Sure, as long as they add the words "Including the president" :)
Click to expand...
Your about the 4th person in this thread to express the same sentiment. Your all fine with a motto being painted on a street as long as its one you approve of as if your approval the the required criteria. What if it isnt message you agree with. What if instead they wanted to write
"Stop illegal immigration"?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Your about the 4th person in this thread to express the same sentiment. Your all fine with a motto being painted on a street as long as its one you approve of as if your approval the the required criteria. What if it isnt message you agree with. What if instead they wanted to write
"Stop illegal immigration"?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They can write whatever they want if it is approved. But it has to be approved because freedom of speech does not allow you to deface public property.
 
trouble13 said:
Your about the 4th person in this thread to express the same sentiment. Your all fine with a motto being painted on a street as long as its one you approve of as if your approval the the required criteria. What if it isnt message you agree with. What if instead they wanted to write
"Stop illegal immigration"?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Cuz there isn't any...
 
Yes. Equal treatment under the law in regards to freedom of speech.
 
Roads in NYC should read "Road Maintained by Democrats."
 
Airyaman said:
They can write whatever they want if it is approved. But it has to be approved because freedom of speech does not allow you to deface public property.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but if the mayor allows things luke "Black lives matter" and "defund the police" to be painted on the street, what possible grounds can she have for not allowing judical watch to paint the street too. Do you think its acceptable for a mayor to base that decission on partisanship?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
jimjeff said:
Because the right is racist...without question!!!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have your mouth wrapped around the CNN fire hydrant.
 
trouble13 said:
I agree with you but if the mayor allows things luke "Black lives matter" and "defund the police" to be painted on the street, what possible grounds can she have for not allowing judical watch to paint the street too. Do you think its acceptable for a mayor to base that decission on partisanship?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The mayor represents local government, the streets belong to the city. Therefore, she was within her right to have the street painted. Judicial Watch is a private company that does not own the street in front of it's property, so therefore has no right to mark the road in any manner.
 
haymarket said:
The people responsible by law for its upkeep, maintenance and care - in the case of Washington D.C. - it would be the government of that area... the city.
Click to expand...

Aaaaand there we go. It was the government. The government cannot afford opportunities of speech to one group and not another.
 
lurchadams said:
And the cons are doing somersaults to pin that on the Democrats. Why? Because you see the Republican's poll numbers and you're desperate.
Click to expand...

The Democrats that run the cities that saw the worst of it let it all happen. That's not desperation...that's fact.
 
Roadvirus said:
The Democrats that run the cities that saw the worst of it let it all happen. That's not desperation...that's fact.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm so sorry that Democrats don't like gassing and shooting peaceful protesters.

Meanwhile the Republican governors who thought it was a good idea to kiss trump's ass, deny science, not wear masks and tell everyone to hit the beaches on Memorial day are not having to shutdown again because their hospitals are filling up.

And you think the countries biggest problem is taking down confederate statues.

I think I'll stay a Democrat. I don't have it with me to hate people as much as you and I'd like to live longer.
 
Airyaman said:
The mayor represents local government, the streets belong to the city. Therefore, she was within her right to have the street painted. Judicial Watch is a private company that does not own the street in front of it's property, so therefore has no right to mark the road in any manner.
Click to expand...
I might take this as a serious response if she were doing something to stop all the peaceful rioters from deystroying both public and private property that does not belong to them.
Its telling that you cant just be honest about the fact that she is using the authority of her offer to censor partisan messages she does not like and promote the ones that she agrees with. I have no doubt you'd be singing a very different tune if it were a republican mayor allowing the nra to paint messages on the street and not allowing any progressive groups the same privilege.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Fishking said:
Aaaaand there we go. It was the government. The government cannot afford opportunities of speech to one group and not another.
Click to expand...

The city government was well within its rights to do that. When you become the government - you can do what you want. Until that happens - get over it.... or not - it matters not to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom