Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[Hamilton Samuels]

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.

Well, yeah... I’m sure someone would kvetch about it, file suit and it would go to court.

But according to you, it's not a problem, since the mayor and government council were involved. So what would be the complaint?

If only you were that naive.

"Not a problem" as ever does not equal "illegal." But you knew that.

Even if you hadn't know that prior to this year, somehow (and I know you did know it), you would have learned it by now, with the Confederate statues coming down from public (and private) land, although they were legal.

As for what the complaint would be, in a lawsuit to try to remove your brand new spulfty Confederate Battle Flag from the road in front of DAR headquarters, in yet another sign of your new found rampant ignorance, the complaint could and would be anything they could think of! I can hear the McColskeys now, about your having reduced their property value, made it less pleasant to look upon the street, increased the chances of an accident in front of their home, or went against community standards and should have your posting street painting powers suspended. People sue over the stupidest things. Sometimes they win anyway, because some judges are dolts, too.

Then, when someone sues and wins that BLM is using the public streets to deliver a political message and the judge finds it to be an illegal use of that space, regardless of the mayor's and town council's approval, you'll be okay with it.

Understood.

Yes, Ward. That's exactly what I said.

Pat, pat.

I know you take it personally here, sometimes. That would be Ward's game.

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.

[Hamilton Samuels]

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.

Well, yeah... I’m sure someone would kvetch about it, file suit and it would go to court.

But according to you, it's not a problem, since the mayor and government council were involved. So what would be the complaint?

Like I said.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/ginni-thomas-black-lives-matter-clifton/2020/07/09/c7b3bb98-c1f5-11ea-9fdd-b7ac6b051dc8_story.html

Sorry. Couldn't read the piece. Paywall. Could you quote it here?

[Hamilton Samuels]

Wealth begets wealth.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/12/egalitarians-be-warned-wealth-begets-wealth

[barton]

Uno, I really fail to see why this matter of street painting is hard to understand.  Municipalities often promote worthy causes that most citizens are behind - a BLM banner or stencil or whatever,  which shows support to a civil rights cause (just as naming a street Rosa Parks Drive or MLK Blvd would and does in many places) that a majority of Americans see as worthwhile and consistent with our founding principles. 

A confederate flag OTOH is not.   

[barton]

   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.   

[kiidcarter8]

Chris Wallace:  "Everyone wants to get the kids back to school"



He's lying.

[Echo4]

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.

Well, yeah... I’m sure someone would kvetch about it, file suit and it would go to court.

But according to you, it's not a problem, since the mayor and government council were involved. So what would be the complaint?

If only you were that naive.

"Not a problem" as ever does not equal "illegal." But you knew that.

Even if you hadn't know that prior to this year, somehow (and I know you did know it), you would have learned it by now, with the Confederate statues coming down from public (and private) land, although they were legal.

As for what the complaint would be, in a lawsuit to try to remove your brand new spulfty Confederate Battle Flag from the road in front of DAR headquarters, in yet another sign of your new found rampant ignorance, the complaint could and would be anything they could think of! I can hear the McColskeys now, about your having reduced their property value, made it less pleasant to look upon the street, increased the chances of an accident in front of their home, or went against community standards and should have your posting street painting powers suspended. People sue over the stupidest things. Sometimes they win anyway, because some judges are dolts, too.

Then, when someone sues and wins that BLM is using the public streets to deliver a political message and the judge finds it to be an illegal use of that space, regardless of the mayor's and town council's approval, you'll be okay with it.

Understood.

Yes, Ward. That's exactly what I said.

Pat, pat.

I know you take it personally here, sometimes. That would be Ward's game.

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.

Of course, Ward.

There, there.

[Echo4]

   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!

[bodiddley]

I think everyone wants kids back at school safely.
That way they can learn, their parents can go to work, life is more normal.

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.

[Echo4]

I think everyone wants kids back at school safely.
That way they can learn, their parents can go to work, life is more normal.

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.

But if we just sold Puerto Rico, we could afford the schools...

[kiidcarter8]

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

[kiidcarter8]

But again Trump is ripping up his health advisors guidelines as too expensive and difficult. 



no idea what this is supposed to mean - other than sounding like anti-administration propaganda.

[Echo4]

[Hamilton Samuels]

Uno, I really fail to see why this matter of street painting is hard to understand.  Municipalities often promote worthy causes that most citizens are behind - a BLM banner or stencil or whatever,  which shows support to a civil rights cause (just as naming a street Rosa Parks Drive or MLK Blvd would and does in many places) that a majority of Americans see as worthwhile and consistent with our founding principles. 

A confederate flag OTOH is not.

BLM is a political statement. The Conferderate flag is a political statement. Painting a public road with one or the other, and with mayor and government council approval, seems to create a circumstance in which the government is using the public space to make a political statement.

That would appear to me to be unconstitutional.

Like the Ten Commandments inscribed on a public building in Alabama, for example. Roy Moore case.

I really don't see a difference between the circumstances.

[Hamilton Samuels]

   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.

Well, I can't help what you feel.

I can only go back to the essential elements of my questioning using public space for political messaging, regardless of the worthiness of that message.