Sore/Loserman strikes again.
To: Daveinyork
So it is illegal now in the United States to display a picture of the President of the United States on public property?
2 posted on
12/09/2004 10:49:09 AM PST by
wideawake
(God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
To: Daveinyork
3 posted on
12/09/2004 10:49:45 AM PST by
AgThorn
(Go go Bush!! But don't turn your back on America with "immigrant amnesty")
To: Daveinyork
Fax him a portrait of Bush. This one prints out nicely on one page. Fax number is for the city office.
Here is a direct link to the phone if you can print from your browser
Bush Portrait Here
8 posted on
12/09/2004 10:58:00 AM PST by
BJungNan
(Stop Spam - Do NOT buy from junk email.)
To: Daveinyork
Oops! Correction:
Here is a direct link to the photo if you want to print from your browser.
I wrote
Here is a direct link to the phone if you can print from your browser
10 posted on
12/09/2004 11:00:15 AM PST by
BJungNan
(Stop Spam - Do NOT buy from junk email.)
To: Daveinyork
11 posted on
12/09/2004 11:03:05 AM PST by
brightx
To: Daveinyork
The market is public property and displaying political paraphernalia, no matter what the intent, says Polite, is inappropriate and divisive. All well and good, Mr. Mayor........but since when is a photograph of the sitting President of the United States "political paraphernalia"??????
I'm sure there are plenty of portraits of Presidents in numerous public properties. What no picture of the President in City Hall? shame.
12 posted on
12/09/2004 11:03:48 AM PST by
Gabz
To: Daveinyork
"The standholder has refused to do so, prompting Polite to say he will ask City Council to change the law so all political items would be banned in public places."
Polite is effectively advocating the banning of campaign ads during an election campaign.
Blatantly unconstitutional. Any elected official who advocates overturning the constitution should be impeached or recalled, possibly jailed.
13 posted on
12/09/2004 11:05:31 AM PST by
Dat Mon
(clever tagline under construction)
To: Daveinyork
15 posted on
12/09/2004 11:16:27 AM PST by
Fiddlstix
(This Tagline for sale. (Presented by TagLines R US))
To: Daveinyork
16 posted on
12/09/2004 11:18:37 AM PST by
tx_eggman
("All I need to know about Islam I learned on 09/11/01" - Crawdad)
To: Daveinyork
"The market is public property and displaying political paraphernalia, no matter what the intent, says Polite, is inappropriate and divisive."
Oh for the love of Pete! Political paraphernalia?? I guess we should start yanking pictures of former Presidents displayed within "public property"...
18 posted on
12/09/2004 11:21:55 AM PST by
raivyn
(I love the smell of FUMING LIBERALS in the morning, but I hate the noise. (Don't you?))
To: Daveinyork
I swear. The more I read about stuff like this, the more it seems like the dims are portraying the Soviet Unions sensorship policies.
Does anyone in their party realize the hypocracy and danger of their sensorship policies.
19 posted on
12/09/2004 11:23:27 AM PST by
CriticalJ
(Ecc 10:2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.)
To: Daveinyork
" ...prompting Polite to say he will ask City Council to change the law so all political items would be banned in public places. ... Polite says he had received complaints from constituents who thought the photos were inappropriate, especially after the presidential election. The market is public property and displaying political paraphernalia, no matter what the intent, says Polite, is inappropriate and divisive. "There should be rules," Polite says. "
I) Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press...
This is located in "The Bill of Rights" in the First Amendment to "The Constitution", Mr. Polite. It is why you, as a government legislator, are NOT ALLOWED to stop citizens from expressing their ideas and opinions whether by spoken word or on paper.
If, Councilman Polite, you insist on carrying out your threat to make this illegal, don't be surprised if you are not able to finish out your elected term. Freedom of speech is not something most Americans are happy to have taken away from them by some overzealous lawmaker.
21 posted on
12/09/2004 11:33:00 AM PST by
spinestein
(Intolerance will not be tolerated !)
To: Daveinyork
'The market is public property and displaying political paraphernalia, no matter what the intent, says Polite, is inappropriate and divisive.'
So does this guy want to do away with campaign signs also, if they are on public property? They also can be considered divisive! What about when you go to the federal courthouse and you see Bush's picture posted there? You can really carry this too far. And do not even think about posting this guy's picture, that would divisive to me! This guy a is a real horse's behind!
22 posted on
12/09/2004 11:41:30 AM PST by
rawhide
To: Daveinyork
Does this guy "Polite" now what he sounds and looks like?
No wonder these clowns lost. I think this guy must have the IQ of a carrot.
23 posted on
12/09/2004 11:42:27 AM PST by
gakrak
To: Daveinyork
The standholder has refused to do so, prompting Polite to say he will ask City Council to change the law so all political items would be banned in public places. Correct me if I'm wrong, but specifically in public places, doesn't the First Amendment address precisely this sort of public expression?
What kind of a public moron would not know that?
25 posted on
12/09/2004 11:44:17 AM PST by
Publius6961
(The most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.)
To: Daveinyork
Does this guy "Polite" know what he sounds and looks like?
No wonder these clowns lost. I think this guy must have the IQ of a carrot.
Correction: know not now. sorry
27 posted on
12/09/2004 11:52:01 AM PST by
gakrak
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson