There you have it, mhendo.
Funnily enough, as they say in Northeast England, I can’t find a single OP that does either. All the fellow said was that he didn’t know whether he would be allowed to open. That’s what the OP says, too. He said he’s going to Canada; he didn’t say he’s being deported.
Not being conservative, I’m not bound by what they say, but from what you quote, it’s pretty much a mountain and Mohammed thing. They might not have removed him from his customers, but they certainly removed his customers from him.
Worth noting why? Certainly not in order to minimize the tyranny visited upon him. If it is worth noting, it’s because it means that there are even more little people whom the Democrites couldn’t give less of a shit about.
P-E-T-T-Y spells “politics”.
You’ve yet to prove that Kerry is even aware of the guy, let alone it’s his PERSONAL responsibility to help this guy break the law or drive busloads of customers to his goddamned pizza place. Should he not have to obey the law, Lib? Should he not have to participate in free enterprise? Does he symbolize the voter, refusing to obey the law, whining an bitching because he’s doing well but not doing better, feeling equally entitled to profit from the DNC while putting up signs that block the fire exit putting them down.
Fuck Kerry. I know that he’s in an ivory tower. I’m just asking you so-called liberals to give a shit about civil liberties. I want to hear you say that the banner law is outrageous — that free people should be allowed to express political opinions with signs on their own buildings. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I haven’t seen the banner law. For all I know, it was simply a matter of blocking the fire exit. I’m sorry if I’m not going to buy into your contrived outrage, Lib. I “give a shit about civil liberties,” but I do not have the information to comment on the specific law here, I suspect your attempts to whip us into a frenzy over it are intentionally weak so you can point a finger and call us hypocrites. He hasn’t been silenced for his speech, he’s been fined for violating some city ordinance that had to do with the actual material presence of the sign, not what it said. Like someone else said, he may have got the same fine for a Budweiser sign. Can you please find out (a) what the actual crime was, (b) what the punishment was, (c) what the appeal process was, and (d) make an airtight case that this is anything more than routine city governance blown up into a psuedo-outrage by right wing hacks?
Well, i didn’t find a single story that suggested even that much. All they said was that he had decided to close down. The stories said that some other business will be forced to close, but Pasquale’s was never mentioned as part of that group.
Actually, i thought that libertarians were also of the opinion that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and that even things (like government handouts) that appear free are paid for by someone somewhere along the line.
How have they done this? There’s no mention of the fact that someone who wants to eat at his pizza place will not be able to get access to it. There’s no doubt it will be less convenient, what with the rerouting and traffic congestion in Boston, but i haven’t seen any story saying that he will be fenced or walled off from potential customers. If this is in fact what’s happening, i’ll retract my statement.
As i said in my previous post, we can argue about whether or not one should require a permit to hang a banner on one’s own property. You feel that such an imposition is a tyranny–fair enough. I tend to agree. But Pasquale himself is implying that he is being harrassed for his pro-Bush views. I’m just saying that i don’t see it that way. Petty bureaucracy is an unfortunate fact of life, but that’s all this is. There’s no anti-Republican conspiracy that i can see, despite what Pasquale would have us believe.
I noitce, by the way, that you have still yet to address the criticisms of your implication, in the OP, that the Democrats “dispatched” a “local bureaucrat” to deal with Pasquale’s sign. Of course, you can weasel out by pointing to your use of the passive voice, but the fact that this insinuation came at the end of a paragraph in which you were criticizing Democrats for their failure to speak up in his behalf makes it pretty clear what conclusion you want us to draw: evil Democratic party sets the wheels of power in motion to shut down the little guy’s protest. If this is not what you intended to imply, perhaps you’d care to rephrase.
Y’see, before spouting stuff like this, it’d sure be nice if you could even begin to show that any Democrats knew about this guy at all before he went to the papers. Oh, but you didn’t say they did, right? Not in so many words. They’re just in the wrong here in some vague and sinister way that you’re unwilling to actually spell out. And anyone who disagrees is an “incorrigible partisan”.
Since you’ve spent most of the thread disavowing having said almost anything, could you just spend a couple of lines explaining exactly why the Democrats have attracted so much of your ire in this case? It surely can’t be too much of a stretch. I’m talking about specific actions here, not just a failure to take your pet story as seriously as you demand.
Jesus. Has anyone actually agreed with the banner citation? The only grounds that people are arguing on is that it has FUCK ALL TO DO WITH THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS, other than physical proximity. Quite a reasonable point, one might think. If no-one was up in arms, leaping to defend this poor downtrodden Joe, it’s because nobody had heard of him before your amazingly overwrought OP. Sheesh.
I notice Lib and others have not asked about the specific citation and reasons that may be had for giving it. Was he blocking a fire exit (I ask for the upteenth time, since it makes perfect sense, given that he was blocking a door and that this was some minor infraction). Is it a city ordinance, just to somewhat control the barrage of advertisements and banners? If so, there’s a tacit agreement to obey by such strictures when one opens shop. I am wondering why NO RESPONSE BUT IMMEDIATE FROTHING OUTRAGE is acceptable to Lib. GOD DAMN DEMOCRATS ALLOWED SOMEONE TO BE BULLIED AROUND BY GOVERNMENT IN A CITY WHERE THEY WILL CONVENE! Excuse me while I hold my breath and turn blue.
Meanwhile, where is Bush? He was here recently, trying to get my vote, telling me I’d be safer. But there’s people setting off minor explosions out my window. Where is he? Where’s Governor Pawlenty? Where? Obviously they don’t give a shit about me or protecting me from terrorism.
No offense, but wouldn’t it be wise to actually get that information before you jump down Lib’s throat? Most responses here are “It’s not Kerry’s fault”, but I’m failing to see where Lib is trying to claim that it is…
Read the OP. “Thanks for nothing, DNC.” The DNC is thus implicated as having shunned some responsibility to help this guy out. He’s not being silenced, he’s just been given a minor citation for some minor offense. What offense? Well, we don’t know, exactly, but apparently it’s an outrage. Well, I need to know what it is before I know it’s an outrage. If Lib wants me to be outraged and will make conclusions about my character, about whom I do and do not give a shit, he must prove this is anything but a routine case, that it is an arbitrary abuse of justice, and that it is politically motivated. Certainly Pasquale believes it is, but he strikes me as a drama queen. He admits that he’s closing because it’s a hassle to be open, and then his customers are shouting that they support him because the gumment’s shutting him down. Why do they believe that he’s closing down for any but voluntary reasons? Well, perhaps he suggested as much. Drama queen. He’s cited for putting up a banner, blocking an exit, and he turns it into a free speech issue. More drama queen antics. Why not just get the fucking permit? Because he won’t be a martyr. Why not stay open and see how you do for business? Because he won’t be a martyr. Drama queen.
As for what would be “wise” to do, if Lib is mounting a campaign of outrage, it would be wise for him to clear up some important questions people ask, instead of quickly judging them on account of the fact that they ask pointed questions he should have asked myself.
Research pending. As if there’s not a baseball game on.
Nowhere I look has either the law cited, or what the banner actually says. But the two things that are clear are, (a) Pasquale is a die-hard Bush fan, (b) he has little patience with the DNC to begin with, and © his main problem is with the fact that he may not profit from the convention, and he’s not giving himself a chance to do so, not with the sign. There is not one shred of evidence that he was cited for what the sign said, or asked not to say it, simply that he needed some sort of permit and refused to get it.
Drama queen.
Thanks, Spoofe. The sign is a 3 or 4 mil polymer banner, like something you would hang in an office: “Think Safety!”, that kind of thing. You could tear it with your fingernail. And Republicans have spoken up. From the Boston Globe:
It is a bit unsettling to hear from Doper Democrats that Republican leaders are more on top of things than Democrat leaders.
I mean, three things are clear. (a) Pasquale is a die-hard Bush fan, (b) he has little patience with the DNC to begin with, and © his main problem is with the fact that he may not profit from the convention, and he’s not giving himself a chance to do so, not with the sign, and (d) fanatical devotion to the pope.
I don’t believe you. I believe that what I would have to prove is that he is a Democrat and that Republicans were the heavies.
Big surprise. Those same Republicans are OK with tear-gassing environmentalists and shooting war protesters with rubber bullets, of course. But the hacks calculate a spin on this. That doesn’t make them “on top of things,” unless “on top of things,” means “quick to distort the truth and exploit any situation,” which is not unsettling because it’s no suprise.
Have a cite with details on the banner? Specifically one with the actual citation against the pizza shop owner and proof that it wasn’t a croutine and unbiased citation?
Actually, it’s mostly because he’s daring people to agree with him in a particularly annoying manner, like those oh-so-common OPs that demand to know why a thread hasn’t been started on their pet peeve of the minute. If Lib really wanted opinions, he’d have said “hey guys, what do you think of this?” Instead, he asked “hey, isn’t this shitty and why don’t you incorrigible partisans agree with MEEEEE!!?” Yes, it’s shitty and yes, most people do agree with him on the banner point, but no-one particularly likes being shouted at and having their indignation demanded of them. Not exactly conducive to a friendly discussion about over-zealous apparatchiks and zoning laws, surely?
Those selfless idealists! For the life of me I can not think of any other motive they might have for such a statement.
Well, we can’t win the game you’re playing. You come in with a hoaky story, and the premeditated conclusion that if we don’t buy this load of crap, we’re hypocrites. If we buy the load of crap, then we’re letting you sell us a load of crap. I’ve told you the one condition on which to rest my outrage, and you’ve refused the challenge, because you know this story is bullshit.
Looks like you Democrites have another brush fire to rationalize away:
I don’t agree with him on the banner point. NO facts have come out that he was singled out, NO facts exist that the banner rule is unreasonable. What is this rule? Why does it exist? It may exist for sound reasons, some of which I mentioned. Please, people, of all parties and colors, collect information before you blow a gasket.