• 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

jotathought said:
If the mayor of DC decided to erect a statue as a freedom of expression and demonstrated favor while denying others to follow suit, it would most likely end up in court.
Click to expand...

What you don't understand is that the government represents the public, and not every private citizen or group has the same role. So the government might name a school for someone, and that doesn't give every citizen the right to rename it how they want. If they want it renamed, they can win elections and get government that agrees.
 
Middle_Ground said:
If judicial watch is willing to foot the bill for the street in total, repairs, upkeep, potholes etc then yes they should be able to paint anything they want on it.
I thought city governments funded by the citizens of that city foot the bill for city streets so they can make the decision to paint stuff on it if they want. Not so much a private organization unless it's there private way...right?
Click to expand...

Yes .. exactly. If the mayor involved the City Council to vote to make an exception, it would have been a completely different outcome. The mayor took the executive route as opposed to the legislative route.
 
Craig234 said:
What you don't understand is that the government represents the public, and not every private citizen or group has the same role. So the government might name a school for someone, and that doesn't give every citizen the right to rename it how they want. If they want it renamed, they can win elections and get government that agrees.
Click to expand...

The mayor choose not to engage the legislative process to vote on it, and instead, made the decision to initiate the process and made the streets of DC a public expression forum. If she denies the request of other's expressions using the forum she created, she's discriminating against other views.
 
trouble13 said:
D.C. Sued over Black Lives Matter Painted on City Streets | Judicial Watch


Should judical watch be allowed to paint their message on the street too?
Why or why not?

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

Actually, I'm gonna go ahead and support this. I think the motto is great, to be honest, and one that BLM would 100% get behind, if they were wise - in fact, they should wait for the paint to dry, then, since D.C.'s roads are fast becoming the next Louvre, they should add "INCLUDING ****ING COPS" directly after.

Yeah, I'm all for this, yes, they should be allowed to paint this message.
 
trouble13 said:
Why not? BLM does not own the street their message is on

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

The owners of the street in DC made that decision.
 
OlNate said:
Actually, I'm gonna go ahead and support this. I think the motto is great, to be honest, and one that BLM would 100% get behind, if they were wise - in fact, they should wait for the paint to dry, then, since D.C.'s roads are fast becoming the next Louvre, they should add "INCLUDING ****ING COPS" directly after.

Yeah, I'm all for this, yes, they should be allowed to paint this message.
Click to expand...
Imo it does not matter what the message is, within reason. The mayor turned her streets into political banners. She cant allow 1 and not the other the same acess.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Who owns the street BLM painted their message on? Are you saying its a private road?

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

Any changes to a public city street are the province of the government of the city of Washington DC. The mural was painted by the Department of Public Works at the direction of the elected mayor. The city government is responsible for it.
 
Roadvirus said:
We saw a lot of people flipping the bird at the law last month. Arson, theft, assault and murder mostly....all supposedly in the name of "justice".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fishking said:
*beep*boop*beep*EvErYoNe ThAt ThInKs DiFfErEnT tHaN mE iS rAcIsT*boop*beep*beep*

Gotta love the programmed regurgitation of meaningless and meritless statements.
Click to expand...

I do! I love your posts, Fish! You should be kinder to yourself!
 
trouble13 said:
Imo it does not matter what the message is, within reason. The mayor turned her streets into political banners. She cant allow 1 and not the other the same acess.

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

Agreed. As I said, I have no problem with these folks writing "No one is above the law" on the streets. Maybe the cops will read it, and learn a thing or two. Then the other side won't have to write their messages on city streets. Win / win.
 
haymarket said:
Any changes to a public city street are the province of the government of the city of Washington DC. The mural was painted by the Department of Public Works at the direction of the elected mayor. The city government is responsible for it.
Click to expand...
Hence why judical watch is suing her.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Nickyjo said:
Great idea. “Because no one is above the law” applies in spades to Trump and police officers. It’s a great companion slogan to “black lives matter.”
Click to expand...
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
 
OlNate said:
Agreed. As I said, I have no problem with these folks writing "No one is above the law" on the streets. Maybe the cops will read it, and learn a thing or two. Then the other side won't have to write their messages on city streets. Win / win.
Click to expand...
Fair enough

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Moderate Right said:
Great. It's about time to show these fools that if they open a can of worms then they've got worms all over.
Click to expand...
I think its a fair request for them to make. Im not seeing why they should not be allowed to have a street too.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom