Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-06-2006, 09:12 AM   #26
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Heretic
Yep, no freedoms lost by telling people what they must wear in order to vote.
And what of your "freedom" to have an independent, unbiased polling station?

Oh and in case you missed it, she was allowed to vote, then escorted out. She had no business in there anymore, particularly if there was any question by anyone that she might be campaigning.

Originally Posted by EC
No, not showing preference. They just overreacted. There is "some" judgement involved here, as with most cases, and I think they excersized bad judgement. I don't think they should be fired or anything, but let's not pretend they are above scrutiny.
I didn't say they showed preference, my point is that they can't look like they are showing preference. This pin can at least be interpreted as a political statement. What if she came in with a pin reading "Win the war first, then withdraw." Or maybe a pin reading "Neville Chaimberlain also wanted peace." Would that also be ok because it does not explicitly support one candidate over another? Where do you draw that line?

What about a pin that simply read "rats" when you vote? Any problem there? Nah, nothing political there, right? What if Republicans in the area had spent $10 million in the previous month on a media compaign to stress the word "rats" any time they referred to Democrats? Now is that pin political speach?

My point is that if we are going to ask our campaign officials to draw that line, then they must necessarily apply the rules any time there is any question. They must do so to avoid any chance that their own bias affects the decision. This is not exactly the first time people have been escorted away for campaigning within 100 feet in Colorado Springs.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 09:33 AM   #27
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
I gotta hand to Beal - he does a great job of making the ridiculous sound reasonable.

Hey Beal, I just noticed - in all the Democratic ads, every Democrat is shown wearing CLOTHING. I bet you've noticed that too. So, obviously, wearing clothing indicates a secret support of the Democratic party.

But I bet you're still going to wear clothing when you vote?

(Unlike us righteous liberatians, who vote by absentee ballot in the nude).
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 09:36 AM   #28
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell
(Unlike us righteous liberatians, who vote by absentee ballot in the nude).
I just vomited in my mouth a little, thinking about Drysdale nekkid. Eewww.w... nekkid dwarf
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 09:45 AM   #29
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Beal
This pin can at least be interpreted as a political statement.
It can be... although most things can be... heck an American flag could be, if it was worn as a pin. How about this? You think someone shouldn't be allowed to wear a yellow ribbon? I don't think that would be right, either... they should be allowed, imo. Is wearing a cross political now? Are we advocating support of religious PACS? I don't think so. Are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to wear my cross as I do everyday? You better not! lol. Yet somehow these people's freedom of expression can be taken away this easily, how is my freedom of expression different? Just because it is ALSO religious? Well that freedom is proscribed by the same body that proscribes thier rights concerning speech, so why is one superior to the other? I don't think so. When we start having this blase' attitude toward censoring there is a problem, it should be HIGHLY scrutinized. I think it's our duties as citizens to ask: WHY?

So, while I don't disagree that it IS possible to interpret that way, I never said it wasn't. I DO believe that it is an unreasonable stretch. As I have heard, both sides support a war, anyway. I thought they just mainly had problems on each side with how it was handled. Am I supposed to buy that someone wearing a peace sign shouldb e asked to leave a poll? Even though thanks to retro culture people have been wearing them again for almost a decade without problem, NOW they are suddenly a problem? Sounds like the only politics going on is the current selective perception of what is "political" attire.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 09:59 AM   #30
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by Faf
I gotta hand to Beal - he does a great job of making the ridiculous sound reasonable.
I didn't say it wasn't ridiculous. My point was that if you want a law banning campaigning within 100 feet, you will have to live with the ridiculous.

You know who also is talented? The author of this article.

A Colorado Springs woman who sported an anti-war button early this week was allowed to vote and then asked to leave the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder's Office.

Election officials said Rita Ague violated a law against campaigning within 100 feet of a polling place when she sported the anti-war pin that some believe was directed at the Republican-led invasion of Iraq.

The county's acting director of the election department said he cannot make an exception. No one is allowed to wear anything political at a polling place.

No one is really sure why this is news, since the woman was allowed to vote before being asked to leave. Election officials believed they had already made an exception by letting her in the door in the first place.

"We just wanted to solve a thorny issue as quickly and painlessly as possible for all people involved," said one official.

Ms. Ague was disappointed that she was asked to leave. "Even though I was done voting, I should have been allowed to stand there and stare at people as they voted, wearing my pin," said Ague. "Anyone has a right to protest a war in front of people as they vote. This is America."


Originally Posted by Faf
Hey Beal, I just noticed - in all the Democratic ads, every Democrat is shown wearing CLOTHING. I bet you've noticed that too. So, obviously, wearing clothing indicates a secret support of the Democratic party.
Joking aside, Faf, are the other pins I described ok? Does it depend on circumstance? Where do you draw the line? Answer that and defend it if you can.

In fact I challenge everyone here decrying this decision to do the same. Tell me where the line should be drawn and be prepared to defend yourself.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:08 AM   #31
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
If I was interpretting the campaign laws, I would consider buttons/clothing/signs/etc that mention a candidate's name or political party improper.

- I would allow voters to wear crosses (or veils). Those aren't specific to any candidate or party.

- An American flag would be OK. A flag with "Vote Libertarian" would be bad. (the Green party might have a secret advantage in encouraging their supporters to wear green while voting. However, a) they need all the help they could get b) 99% of the voting population will assume its related to St. Patrick's Day and not get it)

- A button with "Stay the course" or "Vote for change" is OK - unless a politican party has claimed some sort of legal ownership (trademark, copyright) of the phrase. (Oh, or if there's someone named Joe Change running for office against the incument Bob Course).
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:15 AM   #32
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by EC
It can be... although most things can be... heck an American flag could be, if it was worn as a pin. How about this? You think someone shouldn't be allowed to wear a yellow ribbon? I don't think that would be right, either... they should be allowed, imo. Is wearing a cross political now? Are we advocating support of religious PACS? I don't think so. Are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to wear my cross as I do everyday? You better not! lol. Yet somehow these people's freedom of expression can be taken away this easily
There's a reason all of my statements have followed the "If....then" framework. Shall we allow anything inside those doors, EC? Or shall we place limitations on certain speach in certain situations? If not, fine, that's your belief. If so, then knock off this freedom of expression bullshit, since you know as well as I do that we are at least potentially addressing two competing civil rights: the right to vote and the right to free expression.

Originally Posted by EC
So, while I don't disagree that it IS possible to interpret that way, I never said it wasn't. I DO believe that it is an unreasonable stretch.
And I think that as long as we pass laws like this, this will be the result. As I have asked others, why don't you explain how this line will be drawn? I hope you can defend yourself.

Originally Posted by EC
Am I supposed to buy that someone wearing a peace sign shouldb e asked to leave a poll?
No, but you are being told that if we decide to limit political expression in certain circumstances, then sooner or later someone will be asked to remove his or her peace sign. "If...then." It's quite simple: you cannot draw the lines so perfectly that election officials will not rely on their own judgement, which means their own bias. The only way they can compensate, when put in this position, is simply to always disallow it whenever there is any question.

...and you know what? This is not the first time and it will not be the last time people disagreed with a person's interpretation of a law like this.

Originally Posted by EC
Sounds like the only politics going on is the current selective perception of what is "political" attire.
If it isn't political attire, then how is it a matter of free expression anyway? The actual First Amendment guarantees shit like being able to petition the government for redress of grievances and fancy words like that which have nothing to do with being able to wear your favorite dress. But I digress: I am not going to get in to a stupid argument about the intention of the founding fathers because that is not the point here. The point is simply: where shall we draw the lines so that this won't happen?

Answer that if you think you can.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:16 AM   #33
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by beal
And what of your "freedom" to have an independent, unbiased polling station?
We don't have that. Lots of the voting process is controlled by parties.

What does a persons individual atire have to do with what you wrote?



Originally Posted by ec
It can be... although most things can be... heck an American flag could be, if it was worn as a pin. How about this? You think someone shouldn't be allowed to wear a yellow ribbon? I don't think that would be right, either... they should be allowed, imo. Is wearing a cross political now? Are we advocating support of religious PACS? I don't think so. Are you going to tell me that I am not allowed to wear my cross as I do everyday? You better not! lol. Yet somehow these people's freedom of expression can be taken away this easily, how is my freedom of expression different? Just because it is ALSO religious? Well that freedom is proscribed by the same body that proscribes thier rights concerning speech, so why is one superior to the other? I don't think so. When we start having this blase' attitude toward censoring there is a problem, it should be HIGHLY scrutinized. I think it's our duties as citizens to ask: WHY?
You hit the nail on the head as usual.


Originally Posted by beal
My point was that if you want a law banning campaigning within 100 feet, you will have to live with the ridiculous.
I think it is ridiculous for a person standing there silently to be considered campaigning.


Originally Posted by beal
Joking aside, Faf, are the other pins I described ok? Does it depend on circumstance? Where do you draw the line? Answer that and defend it if you can.

In fact I challenge everyone here decrying this decision to do the same. Tell me where the line should be drawn and be prepared to defend yourself.
All your buttons and all politcal attire should be allowed.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:21 AM   #34
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
(BTW, if I ever run for office in Texas, I'll change my last name to Aqui just to take advantage of all the signs reading "Vote here, Vote aqui")
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:22 AM   #35
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Whats the max penalty, they just ask you to leave? I may go decked out in full liberal attire tomorrow.

Was funny the last time I went...all the pollsters looked like grey-haired church ladies and my friend was all gothed up. After we left he goes, "I bet they went that boy's gonna vote for marilyn manson!" lol.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:23 AM   #36
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by -Heretic
All your buttons and all politcal attire should be allowed.
Fine. Shall we allow marching and other demonstrations inside as well? Or can we still tell people to be quiet? I guarantee you will draw the line, Heretic, the only question is where.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:23 AM   #37
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Everclear
Is this button worth being manhandled while trying to excersize your right as a citizen?
The right to wear a button? I wasn't aware that was a right. Please explain which right was violated.
Originally Posted by Heretic
Yep, no freedoms lost by telling people what they must wear in order to vote.
You aren't losing any freedoms by having to obey the laws, because those weren't freedoms you had in the first place.
Originally Posted by Everclear
It can be... although most things can be... heck an American flag could be, if it was worn as a pin.
OK, this is getting ridiculous. How can the American flag be tied to one party over another?
Originally Posted by Everclear
Yet somehow these people's freedom of expression can be taken away this easily
Freedom of expression is highly subjective and it does have its limits. If I wanted to go vote nude, could I claim that my right to express myself was being violated if I got kicked out or arrested? No, because it is against the law. So is wearing political paraphenalia around polling stations.
Originally Posted by Fafner
A button with "Stay the course" or "Vote for change" is OK
I disagree. Most everyone knows that "Stay the course" is a phrase Bush has used time and time again (even if he doesn't), and "vote for change" can easily be construed as telling people not to vote for the incumbent.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:29 AM   #38
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Heretic
We don't have that. Lots of the voting process is controlled by parties.
Which processes would those be?
Originally Posted by Heretic
I think it is ridiculous for a person standing there silently to be considered campaigning.
Endorsement is endorsement is endorsement.
Originally Posted by Heretic
All your buttons and all politcal attire should be allowed.
Why? You start to allow that, next thing you know you have volunteers lining both sides of the door yelling at you. People should be allowed to vote in peace.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:30 AM   #39
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
If I was interpretting the campaign laws, I would consider buttons/clothing/signs/etc that mention a candidate's name or political party improper.

No, no, no. I don't want you to interpret the laws. I want you to write them. We are coding this in law so that the polling agencies do not introduce any bias in the question of what is allowed and what is not. Examples won't cut it, you need to draw the line in the statute so that no one has to scratch their heads and try to figure out all those things you listed. (At least if your goal is to make sure no one ever "overinterprets" the law or introduces bias.)
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 10:39 AM   #40
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Wildane
I wasn't aware that was a right
Hehe no, I was referring to the right to vote... as it happened during the voting process. I don't know that wearing a pin isa right... might be a liberty, I don't know of any laws that prohibits wearing pins?

Originally Posted by Wildane
OK, this is getting ridiculous. How can the American flag be tied to one party over another?
I don't know... but then again, I don't really know how this pin was, either... all someone has to do is make up some lame excuse as to why they think it is partisan... that's my point. Sure it will happen, but it should be scrutinized when it does.

Originally Posted by Wildane
I disagree. Most everyone knows that "Stay the course" is a phrase Bush has used time and time again
OMG, Bush wasn't "Stay the Course" he was never "stay the course", didn't you hear him say that?

Originally Posted by Beal
If so, then knock off this freedom of expression bullshit,
You are falsly implying that I am against the law in this case. I'm not. I understand the need to maintain order in a voting booth. I know that without order, oversight, and accountability there can be fraud,etc. But at the same time, I am also saying that we need ORDER, OVERSIGHT, and ACCOUNTABILITY. That also goes for decisions such as this one.

Originally Posted by Beal
And I think that as long as we pass laws like this, this will be the result. As I have asked others, why don't you explain how this line will be drawn? I hope you can defend yourself.
Of course I could. Like any gray area in an issue like this, there are several ways they could have gone about this.

1. They could have asked the lady to go ahead and move on outside (since she was done voting), to make room and expedite the process for others, while thanking her for engaging in her civil duties. - This would have been the best way, imo.

or

2. Asked several people present (preferably the comittee in charge) about it, and if a group considered this to be "campaigning", then simply ask the woman to move to the designated area (while also explaining politely that it is to make room for other voters, avoid confusion, and help expedite the process for others).

I don't have a problem with what was done per say... I just question:

1. Why it was necessary -and specifically I dislike
2. The notion that questioning this is is somehow "bad"... it should be questioned, and scrutinized, as should most voting procedures. I am not saying that a "wrong" was done, but I am saying that I think bad judgement was excersized. I think the claim that this particular case was "campaigning" is exaggerated, and the rsponse to it was an overreaction. Once again, when you have judgement calls such as this, it is important to closely monitor them and asses whether the person or persons involved are being reasonable. It's just part of any decent control system.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 12:03 PM   #41
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Everclear
I don't know... but then again, I don't really know how this pin was, either... all someone has to do is make up some lame excuse as to why they think it is partisan... that's my point. Sure it will happen, but it should be scrutinized when it does.
Well, I don't agree with them. There are anti-war folks on all sides.
Originally Posted by Everclear
OMG, Bush wasn't "Stay the Course" he was never "stay the course", didn't you hear him say that?
Hence the parantheses directly after that statement.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 12:20 PM   #42
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Wildane
Hence the parantheses directly after that statement.
I know, I was just joking... I still find that whole backpeddling thing funny.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 01:03 PM   #43
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by EC
Of course I could. Like any gray area in an issue like this, there are several ways they could have gone about this.
Not what I was asking for. I want to know how you write the law so that you don't put election officials in a position of ambiguity, since that is what we are really talking about.

Originally Posted by EC
1. They could have asked the lady to go ahead and move on outside (since she was done voting), to make room and expedite the process for others, while thanking her for engaging in her civil duties. - This would have been the best way, imo.
That is what they did.

Originally Posted by EC
1. Why it was necessary -and specifically I dislike
2. The notion that questioning this is is somehow "bad"... it should be questioned, and scrutinized
I didn't say you can't question it. Rather, I think everyone here is a little too quick to pass judgement on the elections officials as well as assuming she was not allowed to vote (she was, they just made her leave after voting.) I think that this is a manufactured story and I think that quite a few people need to consider why things like this happen and what the alternatives are. Sometimes you have to draw the line ridiculously strict so that there can be no question of bias. You don't let them choose, the answer is always no. That is realistically all they can do any time there is any doubt in their minds that someone is carrying a political message within 100 feet.

...or you just let 'em campaign all they want, from pins with ambiguous meaning right up to marching with sandwich board signs in the lobby. I don't believe there can be a grey area because that causes more problems than it solves.
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 02:19 PM   #44
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Beal
I want to know how you write the law so that you don't put election officials in a position of ambiguity
Why? I never said I had a problem with the law as it is, and I didn't say I think what was done was wrong or illegal... I just think it was uneccessary and an overreaction. I don't know how many more times I should need to explain that. Sepcifically I said what was done should be scrutinized and considered. Unless you are arguing that we shouldn't be paying close attention to what is being done at the polls, and that we shouldn't question why/when/if these kinds of actions are appropriate, then the only place we differ is on our opinion of the actions taken. You might think they were appropriate.... I think they were unecessary. Nothing more to see here lol.

Originally Posted by Beal
That is what they did
No, you'll note my way didn't include opening thier mouths about her pin... it was simply treating her like any old lady getting in the damn way.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 02:54 PM   #45
Beal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,265
Originally Posted by EC
Why? I never said I had a problem with the law as it is
My point is that while you think the problem is with how these particular people handled the situation, they have to act that way. They are forced, by law, to be ridiculous assholes.

So yes, I think you and others have a problem with the law since, as it stands, this will be the inevitable result. Perhaps this is better than the alternatives. For fuck's sake, they told her to take off a peace pin. Yeah, ridiculous, but they also didn't exactly turn on the fire hoses either.

Originally Posted by EC
No, you'll note my way didn't include opening thier mouths about her pin... it was simply treating her like any old lady getting in the damn way.
Well now we are speculating, based on a single, biased account of the event. We have no idea how they approached her. Most likely they asked her to leave or take off the pin. She refused and they argued. Then I could imagine the officials encouraged her to hurry up and cast her ballot and leave just to prevent a scene. But hell, I don't know. What makes the most sense to you?
Beal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 03:14 PM   #46
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
I have no doubt they weren't overly rude or anything... but I can't help but think they approached her and made a comment about the pin, illiciting an indignant response. Just seems to me like stupid rule or no stupid rule, a bit of bedside manner would have gone a long way. I mean after having waited on tables, I know there is a big difference between asking someone to get thier butts outside because it's just too crowded, and you want to help keep everything orderly... and telling someone they are drunk and need to go outside. Sure, maybe in the first case you aren't being honest, but who cares? It gets things done smoothly and doesn't offend people. I mean, who would run a story called "Old lady gets put outsidfe because she is in the damned way"? lol... there wouldn't be a story.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2006, 04:12 PM   #47
Pafuna
Brilliant Curmudgeon
 
Pafuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the Pocket of Big Oil
Posts: 2,063
Originally Posted by Heretic
I think it is ridiculous for a person standing there silently to be considered campaigning.

All your buttons and all politcal attire should be allowed.
So, if I stand outside of a polling place, just like this woman, with a button on stating "Military Vets for War", is that acceptable, too?
__________________
Originally Posted by Ini View Post
Holy shit I think Pafuna just won the intraweb!
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Damn, is Pafuna allowed to win the intrawebs twice, or is it a lifetime achievement thing?
Pafuna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2006, 04:31 AM   #48
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by beal
Fine. Shall we allow marching and other demonstrations inside as well? Or can we still tell people to be quiet? I guarantee you will draw the line, Heretic, the only question is where.
I just did. I said I didn't consider attire to be 'actively' campaigning. Marching and demonstrations most definitely are.


Originally Posted by wildane
The right to wear a button? I wasn't aware that was a right. Please explain which right was violated.
Wheres the right to stop people from wearing buttons?


Originally Posted by wildane
You aren't losing any freedoms by having to obey the laws, because those weren't freedoms you had in the first place.
I thought you were the one who argued this before...every law restricts the freedom of someone somehow. You always have freedoms in the first place.


Originally Posted by wildane
OK, this is getting ridiculous. How can the American flag be tied to one party over another?
American flags and yellow ribbons have became Bush proxies.


Originally Posted by wildane
Freedom of expression is highly subjective and it does have its limits. If I wanted to go vote nude, could I claim that my right to express myself was being violated if I got kicked out or arrested? No, because it is against the law.
What freedom is being infringed on is greater than an individuals freedom of expression? The freedom to not be offended? I thought that was what the conservatives repeatedly laugh at.


Originally Posted by wildane
Endorsement is endorsement is endorsement.
I said its not 'actively' campaigning.


Originally Posted by wildane
Why? You start to allow that, next thing you know you have volunteers lining both sides of the door yelling at you. People should be allowed to vote in peace.
Please don't try to invoke slippery slope here. Its just a button. How does that stop you from voting in peace?


Originally Posted by wildane
Which processes would those be?
Hmm lets see, Bush campaign co-chairs were in charge of the counting in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.


Originally Posted by everclear
and specifically I dislike
2. The notion that questioning this is is somehow "bad"
Isn't that the conservative motto? "Question nothing if it comes from someone in your circle?"


Originally Posted by beal
That is realistically all they can do any time there is any doubt in their minds that someone is carrying a political message within 100 feet.

...or you just let 'em campaign all they want, from pins with ambiguous meaning right up to marching with sandwich board signs in the lobby. I don't believe there can be a grey area because that causes more problems than it solves.
This is not a black/white issue Mr. Sith. Saying allowing buttons = having to allow marching is about the same as saying allowing guns = allowing people to have nukes.


Originally Posted by pafuna
So, if I stand outside of a polling place, just like this woman, with a button on stating "Military Vets for War", is that acceptable, too?
Yep, knock yourself out. Unlike some people, I believe in freedom for all and not just ones that share my views.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2006, 05:30 AM   #49
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Heretic
I just did. I said I didn't consider attire to be 'actively' campaigning. Marching and demonstrations most definitely are.
Well, nobody cares what you consider to be actively campaigning. Besides, the law doesn't differentiate between actively and passively campaigning.
Originally Posted by Heretic
Wheres the right to stop people from wearing buttons?
In the law, stupid.
Originally Posted by Heretic
I thought you were the one who argued this before...every law restricts the freedom of someone somehow. You always have freedoms in the first place.
No, you don't. If the law was on the books before you were born, you never had that freedom.
Originally Posted by Heretic
American flags and yellow ribbons have became Bush proxies.
Where??? Now you're just making shit up.
Originally Posted by Heretic
What freedom is being infringed on is greater than an individuals freedom of expression? The freedom to not be offended? I thought that was what the conservatives repeatedly laugh at.
Ok, let's try to stay on track here....
Originally Posted by Heretic
Please don't try to invoke slippery slope here. Its just a button. How does that stop you from voting in peace?
Slippery slope? Do you even know what that means? If anything, my argument is "gateway to bigger things" or "snowbal downhilll". My point is, if you allow people to wear political attire, how do you justify banning signs and the like?
Originally Posted by Heretic
Hmm lets see, Bush campaign co-chairs were in charge of the counting in Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004.
Linky linky?
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2006, 08:10 AM   #50
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by Wildane
Linky linky?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/ohio.blackwell/index.html

[Katherine] Harris was Florida's secretary of state in 2000 when the election debacle there had to be sorted out before the race was decided. Harris was also the state's Bush-Cheney campaign chairman, as [Kenneth]Blackwell is serving as in Ohio this year [2004].
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:24 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.