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 I’ve said repeatedly if the municipality approves and in some cases commissions an Art project with a political message than it goes up.
If YOU don’t 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.
Poll
5 (45.5%)