Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - UNO

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 71
1
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 01:10:35 PM »
This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

I hope this isn't embarrassing,  but I'm a bit in awe of how you will counter a string of long-winded posts with one sentence that goes right to the heart of the matter while neatly puncturing a giant balloon of verbiage.   

I looked up the GSD.  Thanks,  very illuminating.  Uno has his answer,  if he cares to look it up.   And,  as Bo pointed out,  if the government speech isn't suggesting something illegal, or violating the establishment clause,  then what is not expressly forbidden is allowed.

FINALLY!!!AN answer. And one without snark attached.

Thank you.

Can't wait to see which state creates the first BLM license plate.

And there it is.
There what is?

2
Football / Re: NFL
« on: Today at 10:02:55 AM »
Redskin's no more

Name and logo to go to happy hunting ground

New name TBA.

Washington TBAs?

go figure.

I liked Redtails.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/sports/football/washington-redskins-new-name.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Swamp Things

Think of the merch!

3
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 10:00:25 AM »
You spelled "ideology" incorrectly.

Yes, I did.

4
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 09:46:21 AM »
This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

I hope this isn't embarrassing,  but I'm a bit in awe of how you will counter a string of long-winded posts with one sentence that goes right to the heart of the matter while neatly puncturing a giant balloon of verbiage.   

I looked up the GSD.  Thanks,  very illuminating.  Uno has his answer,  if he cares to look it up.   And,  as Bo pointed out,  if the government speech isn't suggesting something illegal, or violating the establishment clause,  then what is not expressly forbidden is allowed.

FINALLY!!!AN answer. And one without snark attached.

Thank you.

Can't wait to see which state creates the first BLM license plate.

5
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 09:19:33 AM »
This whole debate should be run through our forums Constitutional scholar who will hopefully discuss in detail the Government Speech Doctrine.

It wasn't a debate. It was people so entrenched in the idealogue they wouldn't answer a question without they're fear of being wrong get in the way.

6
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 09:08:09 AM »
Quote from: Uno
   I asked a question and used your answer and Larry's to extend the conversation. Don't blame me for asking, and by doing so exposing some inconsistent thinking on your part.. 
 

Not sure if you saw Kam's post on "concern trolling."  This seems close to that.   I feel your didactic approach is not entirely candid here.

Are you suggesting that there is inconsistent thinking on his part?!

GASP!

Quick kill the messenger. You are using Trump's strategy as your own. No one can question you.

Pretty petty, Josh.

No, but you can make that accusation as much as it pleases you to. You do create a fine set of straw men. Always could.

I think, sadly, in your case, what we've shown here today is what was at the heart of the Harper's letter:  "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?

No, you'd rather try to declare some fault in the person asking you questions.

No difference between your strategy and Trump's.

So to you I'm "fake news" because I ask you to consider your POV is flawed.

Sad.

You didn't raise the Ten Commandments. You raised the Confederacy.

One is religion. The other is politics. The Mississippi flag was legal. A Ten Commandments statue is not, except for Oklahoma, where the statur of Satan is a tourist attraction, if still up.

You're "fake news" (your label, not mine) not because you ask me to check my POV, but because you do it under bogus premises.

You keep claiming I have an inconsistency, but not pointing it out. That is a fault in you. You create a dichotomous question, then reject the answer, claim I haven't answered it, and pose a different question. That is a fault in you.

You suggested I was taking things personally, then have complained that I was claiming fault in you. I'm happy to check my POV. You might consider the same. Or you might not.

You have my permission to paint whatever you would like for political speech on the street by my place. I won't sue unless you lie about me. And don't take down my beehives that are not on your property.

Well, that's a lot of words, but like Larry you ain't answered the question if why POLITICAL MESSAGES CAN BE PAINTED ON THE PUBLIC STREET LEGALLY?

You  have tried to change the subject, or go after me for asking it, but you have yet to answer it.

Don't be like the opposition and refuse to answer the question or deflect and pretend you have answered it.

Answer it.

Or be honest and say you don't know the answer.

As Iíve said repeatedly if the municipality approves and in some cases commissions an Art project with a political message than it goes up.

If YOU donít like that because it offends your sensibilities you can sue for redress.

Dig?

As I told you in the beginning of this bullshit the difference between art and vandalism is permission.

You want a Confederate flag in the crosswalk? Petition the local ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

Good luck with that in 2020.

When did I say I wanted a Confederate flag in the crosswalk?
No, but that's what some of you folks like to do in here, infer what was never implied.

And the question remains unanswered. Well, let me rephrase, you've given an answer, but you have not explained satisfactorily. WHY DO The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES get to promote a political message on the public streets?
 What are the guidelines that permit a political message to be displayed on a public road? What makes it legal?

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

Curious what the legality of painting BLM on public streets really is? I know that when they painted that thin blue line on streets inmany towns in NJ it was declared illegal by the feds.

It is a political statement. Should it be painted on a public roadway?  And is legal to do so?

I'm not quibbling about the message. Just curious about whether it's legal to deliver it in this manner.

After all, I am guessing that if I took blue and white paint and wrote Support Israel on the street, their would be a legal consequence.

So what is the legal stature of this political message delivery system? Anyone?

I taught Art courses at a private school in Potomac and a bunch of the boys were targgers who kept getting into rich kid trouble. I told the brats the difference between graffiti art and vandalism was permission.

When the mayors of these towns approve or in the case of DC commission the work I would think legality is not a huge problem.

So...to extend this, if the mayor, town council, etc, approve, it's not a problem?

Wouldn't that apply to all symbols and/or expressions of political pov,, too?

Case by case and you know that.

So, if a town and its mayor and council approved painting the Confederate flag in a crosswalk, that political statement  would be lagal, based on your statements.

And, as you've just highlighted, that is not the same as saying that I want to paint the Confederate flag on a sidewalk.

Thanks for proving my point.

Back to school, son.

Your hypersensitive nature got you this time.

7
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 09:05:59 AM »
I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

You were asked.

You declined to answer.


Josh. You're childishness is on display

8
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 09:01:52 AM »
Quote from: Uno
   I asked a question and used your answer and Larry's to extend the conversation. Don't blame me for asking, and by doing so exposing some inconsistent thinking on your part.. 
 

Not sure if you saw Kam's post on "concern trolling."  This seems close to that.   I feel your didactic approach is not entirely candid here.

Are you suggesting that there is inconsistent thinking on his part?!

GASP!

Quick kill the messenger. You are using Trump's strategy as your own. No one can question you.

Pretty petty, Josh.

No, but you can make that accusation as much as it pleases you to. You do create a fine set of straw men. Always could.

I think, sadly, in your case, what we've shown here today is what was at the heart of the Harper's letter:  "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?

No, you'd rather try to declare some fault in the person asking you questions.

No difference between your strategy and Trump's.

So to you I'm "fake news" because I ask you to consider your POV is flawed.

Sad.

You didn't raise the Ten Commandments. You raised the Confederacy.

One is religion. The other is politics. The Mississippi flag was legal. A Ten Commandments statue is not, except for Oklahoma, where the statur of Satan is a tourist attraction, if still up.

You're "fake news" (your label, not mine) not because you ask me to check my POV, but because you do it under bogus premises.

You keep claiming I have an inconsistency, but not pointing it out. That is a fault in you. You create a dichotomous question, then reject the answer, claim I haven't answered it, and pose a different question. That is a fault in you.

You suggested I was taking things personally, then have complained that I was claiming fault in you. I'm happy to check my POV. You might consider the same. Or you might not.

You have my permission to paint whatever you would like for political speech on the street by my place. I won't sue unless you lie about me. And don't take down my beehives that are not on your property.

Well, that's a lot of words, but like Larry you ain't answered the question if why POLITICAL MESSAGES CAN BE PAINTED ON THE PUBLIC STREET LEGALLY?

You  have tried to change the subject, or go after me for asking it, but you have yet to answer it.

Don't be like the opposition and refuse to answer the question or deflect and pretend you have answered it.

Answer it.

Or be honest and say you don't know the answer.

As Iíve said repeatedly if the municipality approves and in some cases commissions an Art project with a political message than it goes up.

If YOU donít like that because it offends your sensibilities you can sue for redress.

Dig?

As I told you in the beginning of this bullshit the difference between art and vandalism is permission.

You want a Confederate flag in the crosswalk? Petition the local ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

Good luck with that in 2020.

When did I say I wanted a Confederate flag in the crosswalk?
No, but that's what some of you folks like to do in here, infer what was never implied.

And the question remains unanswered. Well, let me rephrase, you've given an answer, but you have not explained satisfactorily. WHY DO The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES get to promote a political message on the public streets?
 What are the guidelines that permit a political message to be displayed on a public road? What makes it legal?

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

Just finish jerking off and come already...

And thee you go, again, Larry.

Every time you are pressed in this board you return to your 13 year old inner child.

Grow up.

9
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: Today at 08:59:40 AM »
[quote author=LarryBnDC link=topic=55.msg134271#msg134271 date=1594605What makes it legal?

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

We haven't said it IN THIS set of stupid exchanges. We've been talking about it since before you decided to grace us with your presence again and during that time, as well.

But since you seldom answer anybody else's questions much of the time, wtf is your problem?

You are pedantic, petulant, and supercilious.

But in this case, you've not answered a simple question.

Guess your fragile ego can't take another hit.


10
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 12, 2020, 10:28:41 PM »
Quote from: Uno
   I asked a question and used your answer and Larry's to extend the conversation. Don't blame me for asking, and by doing so exposing some inconsistent thinking on your part.. 
 

Not sure if you saw Kam's post on "concern trolling."  This seems close to that.   I feel your didactic approach is not entirely candid here.

Are you suggesting that there is inconsistent thinking on his part?!

GASP!

Quick kill the messenger. You are using Trump's strategy as your own. No one can question you.

Pretty petty, Josh.

No, but you can make that accusation as much as it pleases you to. You do create a fine set of straw men. Always could.

I think, sadly, in your case, what we've shown here today is what was at the heart of the Harper's letter:  "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?

No, you'd rather try to declare some fault in the person asking you questions.

No difference between your strategy and Trump's.

So to you I'm "fake news" because I ask you to consider your POV is flawed.

Sad.

You didn't raise the Ten Commandments. You raised the Confederacy.

One is religion. The other is politics. The Mississippi flag was legal. A Ten Commandments statue is not, except for Oklahoma, where the statur of Satan is a tourist attraction, if still up.

You're "fake news" (your label, not mine) not because you ask me to check my POV, but because you do it under bogus premises.

You keep claiming I have an inconsistency, but not pointing it out. That is a fault in you. You create a dichotomous question, then reject the answer, claim I haven't answered it, and pose a different question. That is a fault in you.

You suggested I was taking things personally, then have complained that I was claiming fault in you. I'm happy to check my POV. You might consider the same. Or you might not.

You have my permission to paint whatever you would like for political speech on the street by my place. I won't sue unless you lie about me. And don't take down my beehives that are not on your property.

Well, that's a lot of words, but like Larry you ain't answered the question if why POLITICAL MESSAGES CAN BE PAINTED ON THE PUBLIC STREET LEGALLY?

You  have tried to change the subject, or go after me for asking it, but you have yet to answer it.

Don't be like the opposition and refuse to answer the question or deflect and pretend you have answered it.

Answer it.

Or be honest and say you don't know the answer.

As Iíve said repeatedly if the municipality approves and in some cases commissions an Art project with a political message than it goes up.

If YOU donít like that because it offends your sensibilities you can sue for redress.

Dig?

As I told you in the beginning of this bullshit the difference between art and vandalism is permission.

You want a Confederate flag in the crosswalk? Petition the local ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

Good luck with that in 2020.

When did I say I wanted a Confederate flag in the crosswalk?
No, but that's what some of you folks like to do in here, infer what was never implied.

And the question remains unanswered. Well, let me rephrase, you've given an answer, but you have not explained satisfactorily. WHY DO The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES get to promote a political message on the public streets?
 What are the guidelines that permit a political message to be displayed on a public road? What makes it legal?

I understand that it happens, but you haven't said why it is allowed to happen. Nor has anyone else, here.

 

 

 



 

11
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 12, 2020, 10:22:03 PM »
Uno:  "You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?"

BLM asserts something enshrined in the Constitution.   It's a political message the same way "we hold these truths to be self-evident... " is one.   The 10 Cs are a religious message and specific to one religion (though many of them are pretty good ethical guidelines and  you could do a lot worse), so they conflict with the Establishment clause,  as YG noted.   



The issue here is state sanctioned political messaging on public roads. It's not whether the message is one that should or shouldn't be valued. The question that has yet to be answered for me is why the government can endorse political messaging on public property?

Are you now arguing that BLM is not a political message?

What is your ultimate point?

Black Lives Donít Matter If Confederate flags arenít treated with the same respect?  NO.

Arguing in favor of Confederate anything is like demanding Nazi Swastikas be flown in front of public buildings in Germany.

This ainít a moment this is a movement

YES. It's a movement. So it's a POLITICAL MESSAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD.

So answer the question. WHY is that legal?
THINK this time before you answer.

Oh, look. UNO still doesn't like the answer.

So, UNO, since we've given you our answer and you don't like it, why not tell us your answer for why it is not legal.

Wow. You really are like what you say you're against.

No, josh, you never answered the question. You tried to reframe the question, but you didn't answer it.

Play games with others, if you wish, but I'll just put you down as Evasive, Cowardly, and Hypocritical, and Obstinate.

12
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 12, 2020, 09:11:06 PM »
Quote from: Uno
   I asked a question and used your answer and Larry's to extend the conversation. Don't blame me for asking, and by doing so exposing some inconsistent thinking on your part.. 
 

Not sure if you saw Kam's post on "concern trolling."  This seems close to that.   I feel your didactic approach is not entirely candid here.

Are you suggesting that there is inconsistent thinking on his part?!

GASP!

Quick kill the messenger. You are using Trump's strategy as your own. No one can question you.

Pretty petty, Josh.

No, but you can make that accusation as much as it pleases you to. You do create a fine set of straw men. Always could.

I think, sadly, in your case, what we've shown here today is what was at the heart of the Harper's letter:  "While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty."

You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?

No, you'd rather try to declare some fault in the person asking you questions.

No difference between your strategy and Trump's.

So to you I'm "fake news" because I ask you to consider your POV is flawed.

Sad.

You didn't raise the Ten Commandments. You raised the Confederacy.

One is religion. The other is politics. The Mississippi flag was legal. A Ten Commandments statue is not, except for Oklahoma, where the statur of Satan is a tourist attraction, if still up.

You're "fake news" (your label, not mine) not because you ask me to check my POV, but because you do it under bogus premises.

You keep claiming I have an inconsistency, but not pointing it out. That is a fault in you. You create a dichotomous question, then reject the answer, claim I haven't answered it, and pose a different question. That is a fault in you.

You suggested I was taking things personally, then have complained that I was claiming fault in you. I'm happy to check my POV. You might consider the same. Or you might not.

You have my permission to paint whatever you would like for political speech on the street by my place. I won't sue unless you lie about me. And don't take down my beehives that are not on your property.

Well, that's a lot of words, but like Larry you ain't answered the question if why POLITICAL MESSAGES CAN BE PAINTED ON THE PUBLIC STREET LEGALLY?

You  have tried to change the subject, or go after me for asking it, but you have yet to answer it.

Don't be like the opposition and refuse to answer the question or deflect and pretend you have answered it.

Answer it.

Or be honest and say you don't know the answer.



13
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 12, 2020, 09:04:38 PM »
Uno:  "You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?"

BLM asserts something enshrined in the Constitution.   It's a political message the same way "we hold these truths to be self-evident... " is one.   The 10 Cs are a religious message and specific to one religion (though many of them are pretty good ethical guidelines and  you could do a lot worse), so they conflict with the Establishment clause,  as YG noted.   



The issue here is state sanctioned political messaging on public roads. It's not whether the message is one that should or shouldn't be valued. The question that has yet to be answered for me is why the government can endorse political messaging on public property?

Are you now arguing that BLM is not a political message?

What is your ultimate point?

Black Lives Donít Matter If Confederate flags arenít treated with the same respect?  NO.

Arguing in favor of Confederate anything is like demanding Nazi Swastikas be flown in front of public buildings in Germany.

This ainít a moment this is a movement

YES. It's a movement. So it's a POLITICAL MESSAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD.

So answer the question. WHY is that legal?
THINK this time before you answer.

14
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 12, 2020, 05:21:07 PM »
But again Trump is ripping up his health advisors guidelines as too expensive and difficult.  Well, what will be too expensive is cheaping out and proceeding laxly and having huge new outbreaks, starting with kids and plowing through their families and teachers.  Reopening state economies without following proper guidelines didn't work out so well.  The death march continues.


No data that says children spread this disease
Because as we all know children do not cough, sneeze or exhale.

Is there data that says they don't spread the disease?

15
Trump Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: July 12, 2020, 05:19:57 PM »
Uno:  "You have yet to address the issues I've raised. How is the BLM state approved political message different than the state approved Ten Commandments statue  or something similar?"

BLM asserts something enshrined in the Constitution.   It's a political message the same way "we hold these truths to be self-evident... " is one.   The 10 Cs are a religious message and specific to one religion (though many of them are pretty good ethical guidelines and  you could do a lot worse), so they conflict with the Establishment clause,  as YG noted.   



The issue here is state sanctioned political messaging on public roads. It's not whether the message is one that should or shouldn't be valued. The question that has yet to be answered for me is why the government can endorse political messaging on public property?

Are you now arguing that BLM is not a political message?





Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 71