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

[braindrain]

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.

And I am sure if come Christmas time a mayor of a large city wants to paint a Christian message on it you will be just done with that and have no problem with that mayor turning down requests from other religions. Right.


But let me guess. That’s different.

 

[braindrain]

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.

I thought those on the left supported the 1st amendment.

Thank you for finally admitting what I have known all along.

 

[braindrain]

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.

And I am sure if a city paints “DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS” on its streets you will just be fine with that right?

We both know you wouldn’t.

But I don’t doubt you will dishonestly pretend you would be.

 

[Airyaman]

And I am sure if come Christmas time a mayor of a large city wants to paint a Christian message on it you will be just done with that and have no problem with that mayor turning down requests from other religions. Right.


But let me guess. That’s different.

It is. No religious themes, at all, by a government. 1st Amendment, you should read it some time.

 

[braindrain]

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.

So only liberal viewpoints are allowed in liberal cities and conservative viewpoints in conservative cities.

At least if nothing else this has gotten the left to finally admit they don’t really support the 1st amendment and it has always just been lip service.

But I am sure you support Oklahoma City painting make America great on its city streets right?

 

[Craig234]

You mean like you had to eat your words in 2016?

What were my words in 2016, since you like to make up lies?

 

[Craig234]

That is a left wing canard. The founders of the KKK which were democrats are not alive today to be republicans. And the suggestion that the majority of democrats pushing segregation and racism in the past switched parties is false. The majority of the so-called dixiecrats were welcomed back into the democrat party. One of them was none other then Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK who held the titles of Grand Cyclops and Kleagle in the organization. Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden at one time claimed him as a friend and mentor. Only three of those dixiecrats went to the republican party.

Everything you posted is, again, essentially a lie. The south has been the source of the country's racism primarily for centuries. In the past, it was in the Democratic Party, for decades it's switched to the Republican Party, where the racists now live. The Democratic Party has never "welcomed back" the racists or their policies.

You, like many Republicans, lie to try to hide the fact by yelling "Robert Byrd" a lot and misrepresenting him to try to say the Democrats are the party of the KKK in modern times.

Robert Byrd WAS in the KKK as a young man - *in the 1940's* - who had already left and renounced it when he started in politics in *1952*, he had joined because he “was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions. ... I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened … it has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one’s life, career, and reputation.”

For decades in Congress, he governed FOR civil rights, and was well respected by civil rights leaders.

Robert Byrd didn't go to the Republican Party - the south did. Byrd left the Dixiecrat racism. Many decades ago. All you have is lies and smears to try to hide the truth about how the racism in the country moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party long ago.

 

[Craig234]

What blood? Blacks getting killed in confrontation with cops? How about the blood of blacks killed in the inner cities by other blacks? The blacks killed in confrontations are almost exclusively justified, just as they are with whites killed in confrontations with cops. In 2019, roughly 55% of those killed by cops were white. Less then 30% were black. Why not look at the root of the confrontations(hint-poverty) rather then pushing the false narrative that all of those killed in confrontations with cops are murder victims?

You posted another lie, a straw man claiming I said ALL black people killed in confrontation are murder victims. I never said that.

You are showing you lack character, the way you use lies over and over and over trying to win an argument, because the truth shows you wrong, whether it's twisting the issue of too many black people killed wrongly by police into a straw man that EVERY black person killed is murdered, or that Robert Byrd proves the Democratic Party is the same party as when it had the racist south to smear it and hide Republicans' history, or other lies.

 

[2distracted]

I read this and laughed .. the same thing is going on in New York City as well. If it's freedom of speech and the mayors can initiate an executive order, by all means others should be able to as well.

Soon all streets will be painted

 

[2distracted]

Everything you posted is, again, essentially a lie. The south has been the source of the country's racism primarily for centuries. In the past, it was in the Democratic Party, for decades it's switched to the Republican Party, where the racists now live. The Democratic Party has never "welcomed back" the racists or their policies.

You, like many Republicans, lie to try to hide the fact by yelling "Robert Byrd" a lot and misrepresenting him to try to say the Democrats are the party of the KKK in modern times.

Robert Byrd WAS in the KKK as a young man - *in the 1940's* - who had already left and renounced it when he started in politics in *1952*, he had joined because he “was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions. ... I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened … it has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one’s life, career, and reputation.”

For decades in Congress, he governed FOR civil rights, and was well respected by civil rights leaders.

Robert Byrd didn't go to the Republican Party - the south did. Byrd left the Dixiecrat racism. Many decades ago. All you have is lies and smears to try to hide the truth about how the racism in the country moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party long ago.

I'll believe all that when a trustworthy source affirms it

In the meantime, we have history...100 percent of Dems voting against the Black vote

 

[haymarket]

I thought those on the left supported the 1st amendment.

Thank you for finally admitting what I have known all along.

Your phony issue has nothing to do with the First Amendment no matter how you twist the issue into a pretzel.

 

[haymarket]

And I am sure if a city paints “DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS” on its streets you will just be fine with that right?

We both know you wouldn’t.

But I don’t doubt you will dishonestly pretend you would be.

I would not find it "right" as in advocating for it. But yes, it would be legal.

Attacking me does not change that reality.

 

[braindrain]

When a member of judicial watch is elected as D.C.’s mayor, they might be able to paint their own message.

Until then, Judicial Watch should go back under its rock and shaddup!

So since trump is president of this country he can paint what ever political message he wants wherever he wants right.

Oh but let me guess. That’s different.

Even though the only real difference if you sort one and not the other. To bad you can’t see that.

 

[braindrain]

It is. No religious themes, at all, by a government. 1st Amendment, you should read it some time.

Painting merry Christmas on a road is not establishing or prohibiting a religion.

Please try again.

 

[Airyaman]

Painting merry Christmas on a road is not establishing or prohibiting a religion.

Please try again.

What religion is CHRISTmas based upon?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So since trump is president of this country he can paint what ever political message he wants wherever he wants right.

Oh but let me guess. That’s different.

Even though the only real difference if you sort one and not the other. To bad you can’t see that.

First, “Black Lives Matter” isn’t a political message.

I’ll play your game anyways. Where would Trump paint his messages of division, exclusion, and twisted, amoral so-called patriotism? He has no authority to paint it on any public street in the United States. That would be outside the boundaries of his authority.

He can’t even do so on any military base. He could probably get away with a non-political message though. What Trump message would you like painted over the entrance to your base?

 

[Integrityrespec]

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

Sure, what's good for one is good for all. Or maybe we just stop the ridiculous practice of painting these messages on streets.

 

[2distracted]

Sure, what's good for one is good for all. Or maybe we just stop the ridiculous practice of painting these messages on streets.

Yeh...it's like ... 2 white guys walk down the street One sees the BLM painted street, suddenly bursts out

You know, I was against BLM but seeing BLM painted here...omg, I'm convinced! Dude, we need to go protest tonight, destroy a statue or 2

Other guy says. Yeh...there's something about that painted street... I'm totally, like, with you, Dude...

The magic of painted streets

 

[trouble13]

Yeh...it's like ... 2 white guys walk down the street One sees the BLM painted street, suddenly bursts out

You know, I was against BLM but seeing BLM painted here...omg, I'm convinced! Dude, we need to go protest tonight, destroy a statue or 2

Other guy says. Yeh...there's something about that painted street... I'm totally, like, with you, Dude...

The magic of painted streets

Funny you should say that. It just happened to me recently. Except it was a dog who told me to go on a killing spree.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Fishking]

Including the KKK or Anon??? There are limits to what is protected by free speech but I'm on record for liking that quote to be in front of the White House and maybe even Capital Hill... eace

Yup...in fact there is a Supreme Court ruling that forced a town that had the highest amount of Holocaust survivors to allow a KKK parade. That aside, this is just Judicial Watch, a conservative leading government watchdog group, so even your standard doesn't apply in this case.

 

[Fishking]

You saying that you already proved I was wrong is worth exactly NOTHING if you cannot even me the post let alone reproducing it. It is that really stale and old "you find it" crap that reeks of trying to get out of a corner you constructed for yourself.

When you answered who owns the street, that was when you were proven wrong. Again, you don't even understand the subject you're talking about but at least your confident in your ignorance.

 

[Schism]

When you answered who owns the street, that was when you were proven wrong. Again, you don't even understand the subject you're talking about but at least your confident in your ignorance.

Seattle bike cops show how it's done: twitter.com/1stRoundFinish

 

[haymarket]

When you answered who owns the street, that was when you were proven wrong. Again, you don't even understand the subject you're talking about but at least your confident in your ignorance.

A differing OPINION is NOT proving me wrong. It is merely a different way to see the issue.

No citizen has any right to tell a municipal government what to paint on its streets.

 

[ludin]

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.

They don't have to go anywhere. Nope the lawsuit won't be tossed. The streets belong to everyone that pays taxes there.
the city should have thought this through better then again they are democrats they don't think.

 

[ludin]

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...

again they can paint it wherever they want to. the city opened themselves up for the lawsuit
and the people that broke the law are in jail where they belong.

i find it funny that there is hardly any democrats that break the law in jail. I wonder why that is?