• 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

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.

Yet none in the so-called "black lives matter" group seem to care about blacks killed in the inner cities every day by other blacks. Should black lives matter change it's name to "black lives matter only if killed in confrontations with cops"? Hundreds of blacks are killed by other blacks in Chicago alone every year.
 
Which owners are you referring to? Name them.

In this case it is the duly elected officials who constitute the city government in the name of the taxpayers and citizens of the city.
 
However since they made the decision to allow the street to be used for political slogans by one group, they must also allow other groups the same opportunity. Otherwise they are violating first amendment rights. You allegedly taught government classes for three decades. You should be able to grasp that.

Not all. Nobody has the First Amendment right to put messages on a city street which they do not own except the duly elected government of the city.
 
they can paint it where ever they want. only people that think they are above the law are leftists.

LMAO, the laundry list of tRumpers who thought they were above the law is long. Plenty of those on the rabid right think they are above the law. Seems those who cling to 'alternate facts' have blinders on so they can't see their fellow travelers...
 
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

I don't really care. The birther movement started in the Hillary Camp. And Obama did not seem to mind. He refused to simply produce a notarized copy of his original birth certificate, as McCain did when he was challenged due to being born in Panama. Obama did finally produce the document when challenged in a bet by Trump.
 
as long as they did not put anything on the street that would violate the first amendment then yes. the city opened themselves up to the liability.

Again put it in front of the White House and I cheer their efforts.... :peace
 
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.

The streets do not belong to the city. They belong to the taxpayers. Taxpayer funded infrastructure is not intended for political messaging. Since the moronic mayor of DC suddenly chose to allow such, then she must also allow others to do political messaging on the streets as well.
 
The streets do not belong to the city. They belong to the taxpayers. Taxpayer funded infrastructure is not intended for political messaging. Since the moronic mayor of DC suddenly chose to allow such, then she must also allow others to do political messaging on the streets as well.

Technically "Black Lives Matter" is not a political message.
 
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.

You are making it up as you go along. Nobody is gassing or shooting peaceful protesters. That is unless you consider violent mobs peaceful protesters.
 
The streets do not belong to the city. They belong to the taxpayers. Taxpayer funded infrastructure is not intended for political messaging. Since the moronic mayor of DC suddenly chose to allow such, then she must also allow others to do political messaging on the streets as well.

Are you suggesting the streets of DC have become a public forum created by the DC government?
 
Yet none in the so-called "black lives matter" group seem to care about blacks killed in the inner cities every day by other blacks. Should black lives matter change it's name to "black lives matter only if killed in confrontations with cops"? Hundreds of blacks are killed by other blacks in Chicago alone every year.

That’s a canard, a deflection. BLM is not concerned with crime in Indonesia either. Their issue - as you accurately described it, absent “only” - has been trying to hold police accountable. A movement of a group on a particular issue, for example, the Tea Party, is not required to deal with other problems that might affect the groups members just to satisfy the group’s critics. BLM didn’t put “only” on their sign. You did.
 
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 are completely backing yourself into a corner....which for you is not unusual. Now you are claiming that the government can do whatever it wants? Simply getting elected gives you a free hand for whatever you want? That sounds fascist.
 
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.

Once again, peaceful protesters not not being gassed or shot. Maybe you cannot personally tell the difference between someone simply holding a protest sign or one throwing rocks and bottles at Police and burning and looting local businesses.
 
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.

My! that sounds very totalitarian! Painting political messages is not a part of maintaining the streets. Maintaining the streets is fixing pot holes and occasionally repaving the streets.
 
Yet none in the so-called "black lives matter" group seem to care about blacks killed in the inner cities every day by other blacks. Should black lives matter change it's name to "black lives matter only if killed in confrontations with cops"? Hundreds of blacks are killed by other blacks in Chicago alone every year.

Every problem facing the African American community today can ultimately be traced back to slavery and racism.
 
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?

What was it about John McCain that made people question his legitimacy? You do understand that McCain immediately produced a copy of his original birth certificate when challenged, don't you? Obama refused to do the same. Obama could have done the same. He didn't. That fed the rumors.
 
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.

Why are those of you on the left still so obsessed over the so-called birther movement? After Obama finally produced a notarized copy of his birth original certificate, the movement effectively ended.....and is these days only brought up in discussions by libruls. personally, I never doubted that Obama was born in Hawaii. I would have liked to have seen what is in his Occidental College records, though. However, the reality is that those records are Obama's business and he has a right not to produce them, just as Trump has a right not to produce his tax returns.

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.

Ask Hillary Clinton. It was in her camp that the birther movement actually started in the 2008 race.
 
What was it about John McCain that made people question his legitimacy? You do understand that McCain immediately produced a copy of his original birth certificate when challenged, don't you? Obama refused to do the same. Obama could have done the same. He didn't. That fed the rumors.

McCain was born in Panama and that was the controversy...
 
In this case it is the duly elected officials who constitute the city government in the name of the taxpayers and citizens of the city.

So what you are suggesting is that local governments can do whatever the hell they want with no legal consequences?
 
Not all. Nobody has the First Amendment right to put messages on a city street which they do not own except the duly elected government of the city.

Those streets are public infrastructure. if the city allows one group to use them for political expression, they must allow other groups to do the same. Political expression is not street maintenance. You are making up your argument as you go along and looking quite silly.
 
Are you suggesting the streets of DC have become a public forum created by the DC government?

Once they allow the streets to be used for political messaging, yes.
 
Where this is painted in Washington DC the street is named Black Lives Matter... Now, what do you think the city will argue?
Which opens the door to allowing them to change one of the street names to judical watch as well. Im not really seeing what your point is

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom