• 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

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.

No...that's not how it works here in the U.S., at least not yet. You and your leftists buddies are desperately trying to make it so but there is still time until we get to that totalitarian stage. Until then, we have this thing call freedom of speech and they government *will* lose this lawsuit.
 
People torching and looting are "peaceful protesters" in your world?

You and trump are trying to tie the looters to the peaceful protesters. You can't run on your record or ideas, so dirty tricks are all you have left.
 
No...that's not how it works here in the U.S., at least not yet. You and your leftists buddies are desperately trying to make it so but there is still time until we get to that totalitarian stage. Until then, we have this thing call freedom of speech and they government *will* lose this lawsuit.

You make the mistake of a high school freshman who thinks he just learned a magic phrase. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you thing freedom of speech is. It is completely a part of the government role to maintain the streets. Nobody has a right to have anything painted on a public street. What is painted on a public street is strictly up to the proper governmental authorities.

Your freedom speech never enters into it.
 
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

because there are qualifications to make one eligible for president. if someone thinks those qualifications have not been met, they would question the person;s birthplace. questioning the person;s birthplace in that instance , is not automatically racist.

"In order to be eligible to serve as president, a person must either have been born on U.S. soil or (if born overseas) to at least one parent who is a citizen. "
 
because there are qualifications to make one eligible for president. if someone thinks those qualifications have not been met, they would question the person;s birthplace. questioning the person;s birthplace in that instance , is not automatically racist.

"In order to be eligible to serve as president, a person must either have been born on U.S. soil or (if born overseas) to at least one parent who is a citizen. "
Which has always confused me because even if he was born overseas wasnt his mother an American citizen?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You make the mistake of a high school freshman who thinks he just learned a magic phrase. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you thing freedom of speech is. It is completely a part of the government role to maintain the streets. Nobody has a right to have anything painted on a public street. What is painted on a public street is strictly up to the proper governmental authorities.

Your freedom speech never enters into it.

You really don't have a clue of which you speak, yet you do it so confidently. I find that fascinating.
 
Ooooh, a racist right-wing activist organization has a problem with black people - stop the presses!

Try googling the term "viewpoint discrimination".

This is plainly and obviously unconstitutional. Someone needs to stand up for freedom since the ACLU is in the tank these days.
 
because there are qualifications to make one eligible for president. if someone thinks those qualifications have not been met, they would question the person;s birthplace. questioning the person;s birthplace in that instance , is not automatically racist.

"In order to be eligible to serve as president, a person must either have been born on U.S. soil or (if born overseas) to at least one parent who is a citizen. "

And why did this one particular president's birth place come into question? What was it about Barak Obama that made people question his legitimacy, and no other president?
 
And why did this one particular president's birth place come into question? What was it about Barak Obama that made people question his legitimacy, and no other president?

Wouldn't the answer be, because there were questions about where he was born?
 
Wouldn't the answer be, because there were questions about where he was born?

There is no question as to where obama was born. It was in Hawaii. There is a birth certificate, and a newspaper announcement. There is absolutely no reason to question Obama's legitimacy more than any other president.

Which brings the motivations of those who did question his legitimacy into question. It is the opinion of many, including myself, that birtherism was rooted in racism. There is certainly no other explanation that has been forthcoming.
 
You really don't have a clue of which you speak, yet you do it so confidently. I find that fascinating.

and despite your show of false courage you FAIL utterly to point out what I said that is not correct.
 
Try googling the term "viewpoint discrimination".

This is plainly and obviously unconstitutional. Someone needs to stand up for freedom since the ACLU is in the tank these days.

Is it? What is the name of the street where it's painted?
 
Which has always confused me because even if he was born overseas wasnt his mother an American citizen?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I have no idea, I am not arguing that he was not eligible to be president, just that it is possible the concern is possibly warranted without bleating about racism
 
I have no idea, I am not arguing that he was not eligible to be president, just that it is possible the concern is possibly warranted without bleating about racism

Of course that overlooks why the whole birther movement began which was to infer that he was not eligible to president if he wasn't born in the US. The whole "natural born" citizen argument that was quickly put aside when Ted Cruz was running for president.
 
There is no question as to where obama was born. It was in Hawaii. There is a birth certificate, and a newspaper announcement. There is absolutely no reason to question Obama's legitimacy more than any other president.

Which brings the motivations of those who did question his legitimacy into question. It is the opinion of many, including myself, that birtherism was rooted in racism. There is certainly no other explanation that has been forthcoming.

I didn't really follow it, didn't really care, still don't, but wasn't there a prolonged "fight" about a birth certificate? I don't even know, are they required to file one to run?
 
what do you have against them using their first amendment rights?

the city opened themselves up to the liability they have no choice but to let them now.

lol judicial watch racist.

typical leftist nonsense to anyone that opposes them. scream racists such a failure and always has been.

They need to go to a republican run city if they want to do that. DC is a democrat city and run by a democrat mayor. The streets belong to the 90% democrats that pay taxes in DC.

The lawsuit will be tossed. It's a non-starter.
 
Its in the op

“Because No One is Above the Law,”

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Then they need to practice what they preach and hold the president accountable for all his crimes. But we can't mention that.
 
I have no idea, I am not arguing that he was not eligible to be president, just that it is possible the concern is possibly warranted without bleating about racism
Yea, I wasnt really asking you as much as it was just a comment being made in passing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Then they need to practice what they preach and hold the president accountable for all his crimes. But we can't mention that.
You are speaking jibberish. At least half a dozen times its been mentioned that you think Trump broke the law. What are you basing your claim on that your not allowed to say that?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Is it? What is the name of the street where it's painted?

Yes, it is. Again, try googling "viewpoint discrimination" so you can discuss armed with relevant knowledge. It can help.
 
what do you have against them using their first amendment rights?

the city opened themselves up to the liability they have no choice but to let them now.

lol judicial watch racist.

typical leftist nonsense to anyone that opposes them. scream racists such a failure and always has been.

Why don't they paint their message on their building?
 
The only problem I've seen is they want to be treated equally and paint their slogan on the street as well. If the mayors of DC and NYC can do it, it sets the precedent. Either Judicial Watch should be allowed or the mayor of DC should be required to remove it.

Why don't they paint their message on their building?
 
Its in the op

“Because No One is Above the Law,”

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Why don't they paint their message on their building?
 
Back
Top Bottom