Cite? Which representative said that? What were *his *sources? (Or Ms Bachmann’s sources?)
Too bad the Tea Party hadn’t planned ahead, thinking their congresscritters might need some inspiration just now. They could have scheduled a rally in the Mall, so we could test the “partisanship.”
Mainly because it’s an example of partisanship that’s pro-Obama.
What exactly did you guys expect? That you could stage a massively partisan attack and the other side wouldn’t fight back? Your side staged this shutdown for partisan political reasons. The other side is staging events to make the shutdown look bad for the same reasons. You’re complaining that your opponents are refusing to cooperate with you in your attack against them.
Don’t know what his sources are or even if it’s true.
…wow. That opinion piece is so full of absolutely nothing the author didn’t even bother to put his name to it. It is literally full of uncited assertions: you can’t take any of it claims seriously.
And all it has is a “strong suspicion that doing so is not saving taxpayers money.”
Yep, that’s what I call deep investigative research.
If either of you had bothered to read why I cited that article you would know that I referenced a Congressman who said that barricading the monuments costs more than keeping them open. If you want to blame Fox News for making up the quote feel free but, otherwise, you’re pissing in the wind.
…I know why you cited the article. I actually had bothered to do that. I’m still free to comment on how bad the article is, aren’t I? The article was ridiculous. I have no doubt the quote is accurate. That doesn’t stop the article from being so stupid it actually made my brain hurt.
Of course…carry on 
You realize that all those restrictions were thrown at after the SCOTUS had their turn?
Short case summary:
National Socialist Party of America (basically Nazis, white power ideologues) wanted to march in an area heavily populated by Holocaust survivors. Village of Skokie tried to bar them. Lower courts issued an injunction against the Nazis. It worked its way up in state courts. Higher courts backed the injunction. It went to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS sent it back to the Illinois Supreme Court which sent it to an appeals court which sent one issue back to the state Supreme Court. Net result, the Nazis had the right to march in all their vile glory. They ended up marching in Chicago instead.
Because, as he’s repeatedly stated, that isn’t his position. His position is that there is a reasonable reason to deny a protest, but there is not a reasonable reason to prevent people from simply being on the lawn. The argument is based on the protest requiring external help while being on the premises does not. He’s said nothing about the importance of either activity.
Furthermore, he’s even allowed for the possibility that simply being on the lawn itself requires at least some staff, and thus could also be forbidden. What he doesn’t understand is why the rally would be allowed but merely being there forbidden. In his mind, the government has no interest in deciding which activity is more important.
And of course he objects to your characterization, as it is both untrue and deliberately phrased in order to make him look bad. It’s a classic example of the strawman fallacy.
You want to argue that the government should care about which activity is more important, go ahead. But stop putting words in the guy’s mouth. If you have to do that, you are tacitly saying that you do not think your argument holds water.
He’s specifically said that a First Amendment right should be curtailed because it would cost the government money. That’s not a strawman, that’s an unjustifiable violation of civil rights.
Yes, I realize that - my whole point was that the Supremes eventually ruled that the Nazi Party had the right to demonstrate, no matter how odious their choice of location, dress, etc. might be.
Not “curtailed”. Just not facilitated. Not if the government is in shut-down mode. And that infringes on no individual’s right to free speech.
Can you explain to me what your cite has to do with the thread? Just not seeing it.
Ahh, thank you.
This is just as applicable if referring to the way Obamacare was passed.
As I stated earlier, where we are now is what can happen when one party, who has control of all three branches, passes a piece of major legislation without getting a single vote from the other side for its passage. It is constitutional for them to do so, but when the power shifts, you can’t be surprised when the other side fights back. If there is one lesson to be learned in this that we can make us smarter in the future, it is that.
This is what happens when one party decides to throw a multi-year temper tantrum because they lost a Presidential election twice. They start to think that any progress that might cause people look favorably on the government is something that must be stopped at any cost. Just another Republican application of their “Government(as run by our opponents) is fucked up, and we’ll prove this to you even if we have to fuck it up ourselves!” policy. Taking your ball and going home is childish-doing your best to destroy the field on your way out is despicable
Free speech overrules pretty much everything.
What was facilitated? Be specific.
And why italicize “individual?” Are you going to make some laughable point that groups don’t have First Amendment rights, despite that part that says something about the right of the people to peaceably assemble?