No, I’m making the point that the value of your contributions to the board are almost on par with those made by Reeder, this abortion of an OP being a prime example. If Polycarp had posted this thread, I expect skutir would be making the same arguments. But then, Polycarp being an intelligent and reasonable poster, I wouldn’t expect him to post a thread like this in the first place.
If only that were so. Unfortunately, you chose to come in here and scream at the top of your lungs, ignore everything offered you by way of response, and generally be a jackass. But in the vain hope that you might settle down a moment and listen, here is a recap: there is NO Democrat official who has spoken out, though Republican officials have; the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits abridging free speech; and if you are indeed a liberal, then you should be outraged. Think Thoreau.
If you’re suggesting I would have cussed less, and been less of an asshole myself, had the OP been less inflammatory (and disagreement and questions treated with less self-rightous condemnation), you are correct. I sunk quickly, especially when the accusations came at me for wanting details and supposing that this may be less than an outrage on par with the Kent State shootings. However, my questions would have been the same. I meet liberal hysteria with the same furrowed brow, I assure you. I am basically liberal, but do tire of liberal rhetoric from time to time. I recently was stopped for the dozenth time by democrats on campus and asked, “do you want to help defeat Bush?” I said, “At some point you’ll have to start asking people, ‘do you want to help elect Kerry?’”
That sounds like something December would post. Skutir’s and Early Out’s posts have been shrill and unresponsive, but others, like LilShieste, Mehitabel, Masonite, and NurseCarmen, for example, have been quite supportive. You are therefore making things up, in the manner of December. Just something for you to meditate on.
Then maybe when all the flack settles out of the air, you and I can find some common ground. 
I’ve asked important questions and made points… like, for instance, that your complete position is unsupportable by the facts. That you choose to ignore them does not make them worthless.
I just recapped them for you. What the hell? Ignoring is as ignoring does.
Yeah, actually. You haven’t opened as many recently, but you were running a whole slew of them a while back, doing down Kerry/the Dems and bemoaning the fact that you were being forced to vote for them (woe). This is the first I’ve seen for a while, but it’s no more exciting than the previous ones. It gives me no joy to say it, as I’ve enjoyed reading your threads on Libertarianism and occasionally the ontological dooberry (heck, I even participated in one of the latter and had fun). But “these ludicrous threads” are a definite pattern, and they’re really annoying. And let me tell you, I’m not even bugged because I am a Democrat, which I’m not (nor am I a Republican). It’s because they’re just another example of the mindless partisanship that infests these boards from both sides, made all the more frustrating because there’s absolutely no need for you to do it.
I can’t possibly believe that you think your OP here is an invitation to rational debate of free speech principles, littered as it is with demonisations of just one political group, whether you accuse them directly or not. I can see precisely one person in this thread defending the banner thing, skutir, and I think he’s made some perfectly reasonable points, which you’ve chosen to ignore. DtC asked for more info, which was not forthcoming. If the banner law were the cause of your ire, I’d have thought you might find out which actual law was involved, who enforced it and whose idea it was in the first place. But no, you’ve made a facile connection with the DNC, and proceeded to bash anyone who objects to this connection over the head with speechifying about civil liberties.
As for your recap: what of my point about there being no quote from Badnarik? I even checked on his website, you know. Nothing. Could it be that our potential world leaders aren’t on hand 24-7 to commiserate with guys who may or may not be forced to take down a sign? Like I said: this story is on precisely three sites that I can find, not counting the uber-vigilant bloggers. Did you think that maybe the reporters just didn’t ask?
As usual, I am unable to tell if you are being deliberately dishonest, or are simply deluded.
You’ve recapped nothing. In fact, you’ve capped nothing in the first place. Your empty rhetoric and claims to lonely defender of civil liberties are not facts, Lib, and they are not logic. They are shameless ad hominem distractions. Come down off that high horse and answer my questions: what was the citation for? Is there any reason to believe the citation was politically motivated? Was it just a routine thing, a piece of paper, a warning, something about the specific placement of the banner (blocking a doorway) and the lack of a permit (how hard is it to get one? did he apply? was he refused? can he get one now?)
You’ve admitted you were wrong about the airport thing, what is so hard about looking at this and seeing it is not the civil rights travesty you pretend it is? Nobody’s been silenced. Someone has committed a minor infraction with the placement of a banner, is given a piece of paper which he ignores – this does not make me nervous that we’re sliding into a totalitarian state. This is very simple to see, if you are not “uber-hysterical” (your word).
Near as I can make out, he’s pissed at the DNC for holding their convention in Boston, thus proving disruptive to the local fauna and flora, instead of holding their convention that wouldn’t inconvenience anyone, such as the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
What a fucking train wreck this is.
Lib, if you had simply come in and made a point about the possible abridgement of this guy’s first amendment rights, i could at have respected and supported your position.
But the implication of the OP is not only that the Democratic Party has failed to stand up for this guy’s rights, but that it was directly and nefariously involved in taking them away in the first place. Your OP suggested very strongly that the person who issued the citation was doing so at the direct behest of Democratic Party officials.
Personally, i think that the guy should be able to hang whatever sign he wants on his building, as long as he’s not blocking any exits or contravening any safety regulations. I could have got on board with your argument on that score.
But all i see right now is one continuous string of disingenuousness. You pretend that the purpose of your thread was to defend civil liberties, but the way you’ve made your argument, it looks more like the main purpose was to bash Democrats. This impression is strengthened by your willingness to cite a Republican Party leader on this issue. I actually credited you with enough intelligence to recognize when a political hack grabs an opportunity to make hay at the expense of the opposition party. Simple question: Do you really think that the Republican in that story expressed support for Pasquale out of a philosophical concern for civil liberties?
I’ve got no problem with bashing Democrats. Plenty of them stick in my craw, and i think they’re as bad as Republicans on some issues. But at least someone like Reeder has the guts to come out and say “I’m bashing Republicans,” rather than concocting a straw man as a cover for his partisanship.
There has been absolutely no proof – indeed, no SUGGESTION, outside of Lib and whatever right-leaning nutjobs he listens to – that the city of Boston feels any differently than you. It was about blocking exits, and not about what the sign said. He wasn’t even asked to take it down, he was asked to move it.
Lib, let me make this simple, please tell us exactly which civil liberty has been violated, who violated it, and what the DNC has to do with anything.
The crux of the matter is apparently some city ordinance regarding unlicensed banners. The content of the signs is irrelevant. If he was asked to move (that is move not remove) a sign to comply with a safety regulation, and he refused, are you seriously contending that his civil rights have been violated?
If you can’t provide some evidence that he was asked to remove his sign because of its content, then you simply have no credible charge that his free speech has been voloated, much, much less that the DNC had anything to do with it.
If you have a gripe with the ordinance then your ire should be directed at the city of Boston, not the DNC or John Kerry.
And in order to support an argument that JFK and co should take to the streets in protest, you first have to be clear about exactly what the outrage is. What are you suggesting that the DNC should be upset about? The ordinance? Well, I’m still not clear on what the ordinance is. Perhaps it is an outrage. I’ll have to see it before I can pass a judgemet. If the ordinance expressly forbids signs based on political content, I’ll join you in your outrage.
You haven’t really connected all the dots yet, Lib. I’m not attacking you, I’m telling you objectively.
But I did, and you didn’t.
Sure, I’ll do that again. 1: The man’s right to put a political message on his own building ought not to be abridged by government. 2: The city of Boston. 3: It has a responsibility as the party that champions civil liberties to, well, champion them.
You have not proven your first contention. he was asked to move the sign (again, to MOVE it not to REmove it) to comply (apparently) with a safety code. Is it really your position that such an ordinance violates the first amendment?
This saga grows too complex for me. Can someone pray tell let me know when the TV Movie They Asked Me To Fill Out a Permit: The Annoyening of Mark Pasquale will air that might bring to light this travesty in a simpler format?
OK, Lib. What if the “political message” blocks a fire escape, and the city of Boston pops in to tell him, not to remove his sign, but to move it so it’s not blocking the door? What if downtown businessmen have agreed to certain rules of decorum that require a permit to hang certain signs, just to avoid the clutter. The permits are free and generally given when requested and pose no censorship on the content of the posters, but merely try to limit the sheer amount of signage in a given area? What if such rules are broken, and some functionary simply walks in a lets a fellow know he needs a permit, and needs to not block the fire exit. He doesn’t ask a guy to take down the sign, just to move it and get the appropriate permit. They don’t take down the sign or fine the fellow, they just let him know that the sign blocks an exit and that he needs to have a permit. Do these really constitute a limit on free speech?
An exaggerated parellel case: I construct a 100 foot wall with the words, “Fuck Bush!” on my property, surrounded by a bed of broken glass planted sharp-side-up in cement. I’m approached by the city and told I need a permit for such structures and that my art project is a public health hazard. They don’t take it down, but they advise me to get the permit and/or to see about putting it somewhere so it doesn’t endanger public safety. Is this a violation of free speech, or merely a matter of me not adhering to certain policies established by the city for purely good intentions?
Now you’re just lying.
I’m done with this thread.