- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 42,340
- Reaction score
- 31,607
- Location
- Tennessee, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Yep, I'm so sorry that Democrats don't like gassing and shooting peaceful protesters.
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.
People torching and looting are "peaceful protesters" in your world?
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.
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
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
Which has always confused me because even if he was born overseas wasnt his mother an American 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. "
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.
Ooooh, a racist right-wing activist organization has a problem with black people - stop the presses!
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?
Wouldn't the answer be, because there were questions about where he was born?
You really don't have a clue of which you speak, yet you do it so confidently. I find that fascinating.
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.
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
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.
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.
Its in the op
“Because No One is Above the Law,”
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Yea, I wasnt really asking you as much as it was just a comment being made in passing.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
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?Then they need to practice what they preach and hold the president accountable for all his crimes. But we can't mention that.
Is it? What is the name of the street where it's painted?
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.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?