Politics As Usual

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I love how Penske's socks move heaven and earth to rationalize that Hillary Clinton has the audacity to have cankles.

Speaking of audacity.....

[SlaveNoMore]

ltl/fb
Because all those R politicians are total hotties. Physically perfect. God, I just want to throw them down and fuck them all!

Keep dreamin', toots.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by the Spartan

You wish someone would look that happy at having you come in her mouth.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Because all those R politicians are total hotties. Physically perfect. God, I just want to throw them down and fuck them all!

Not a cankle in sight.




that is SO HOT!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Keep dreamin', toots.

No, in my DREAM dreams I'm topping you like you've never been topped before.

This is just daydreaming. Mmmmm, Jesse Helms. Orrin Hatch.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You wish someone would look that happy at having you come in her mouth.

Wrong-o bong-o. The only thing I want to see when I am coming in some chick's mouth is the top of her head. Unless my wine glass is resting on it. Her happy face should be pressed up against my nether regions while I whitewash her tonsils.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Not a cankle in sight.




that is SO HOT!

Not that I don't like breasts and stuff, but you could lose an eye (or worse!) with those elbows/collarbones/wrists/knees/hipbones.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Wrong-o bong-o. The only thing I want to see when I am coming in some chick's mouth is the top of her head. Unless my wine glass is resting on it. Her happy face should be pressed up against my nether regions while I whitewash her tonsils.

And that utter lack of regard for whether I'm enjoying myself is what truly makes R men so fuckable.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Burger previously floated the idea that you are now toying with -- that you can suppress certain political speech on the rationale that it may cause a disruption, and that therefore the discrimination against it is really not viewpoint-based. If you think you have a case that stands for that proposition -- the one you are relying on has to do with organizations seeking to join a fundraising drive in federal offices -- by all means, post it. But Burger was smart enough not pursue that line of thinking, since it would gut the First Amendment's protection of unpopular political speech. They weren't kicking people out with tee shirts with political speech on them -- they were kicking out the two people wearing anti-Bush messages. The First Amendment doesn't allow this.

You are wrong about the 1st amendment analysis. Did you read the cases I posted? Don't bother answering because clearly you did not. The USSC clearly stated that in a non-public forum, avoiding disruptions is a reasonable restraint on speech as long as it is viewpoint neutral.

Assuming there is state action, the analysis is that first you have to figure out if it is protected speech. If it is protected speech, then you determine if the forum is a public, designated (or limited) public forum, or a non-public forum. If it is a non-public forum and the regulation is viewpoint neutral, then reasonableness is the standard for assessing content-based regulations.

You say they were kicked out based on viewpoint. What if they kicked out those with anti-Kerry T-shirts, too? That would be viewpoint neutral but content based in that any campaign related speech was excluded (i.e., subject-matter regulations which are constitutional in non-public forums - go read the cases if you don't believe me). But if there were no anti-Kerry T-hsirt wearers there, the fact that anti-Bush T-shirt wears were kicked out wouldn't be dispositive of a viewpoint bias.

The union case with the teacher's union that I posted was a political speech case. The issue was the salaries and benefits of public school teachers. The government barred the more liberal union that wanted to attract teacher's support. Show me a case where in a non-public forum, the USSC said that strict scrutiny was required. You cannot because the test is reasonableness. You are just wrong. Read the cases.

You seem to think that the issue is whether it is political speech or not. That isn't the issue in a non-public forum. The issue in a non-public forum is if it is viewpoint neutral.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And that utter lack of regard for whether I'm enjoying myself is what truly makes R men so fuckable.

Unless someone's coming on to you hard on PM, you realize this is purely valuble to us for curiosity's sake.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Unless someone's coming on to you hard on PM, you realize this is purely valuble to us for curiosity's sake.

fwiw, We are discussing Greece right now. On. IM. FWIW, fyi.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Not that I don't like breasts and stuff, but you could lose an eye (or worse!) with those elbows/collarbones/wrists/knees/hipbones.

michigan has a fat Senator, actually they're both sort of fat. the 3 fattest are women. who'd believe it?

its the mannish looking one

I thought maybe Hawaii would have a fat one, you know "A samoan," but nope.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
michigan has a fat Senator, actually they're both sort of fat. the 3 fattest are women. who'd believe it?

Does this look like a woman to you Hankie?? Pankie.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Does this look like a woman to you Hankie?? Pankie.

Photo. Shop.
Its all about context and background. He doesn't seem so fat here, as an example


this whole thing has been an eye opener for me. I've been sheltered. Growing up my parents only let us have a 1946 encyclopedia because it was the last year there were no lies about Richard Nixon. the only info about the Kennedy's was BEFORE any held office. i'd heard of Ted K. but thought this was him

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I will help you educate yourself more:

PERRY ED. ASSN. v. PERRY LOCAL EDUCATORS' ASSN., 460 U.S. 37 (1983)

• In places which by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks which "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939). In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 461 (1980). The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U.S. 114, 132 (1981); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 535 -536 (1980); Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra, at 115; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939).
  
  A second category consists of public property which the State has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity. The Constitution forbids a State to enforce certain exclusions from a forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to create the forum in the first place. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981) (university meeting facilities); City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167 (1976) (school board meeting); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546 (1975) (municipal theater). 7 [460 U.S. 37, 46] Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest. Widmar v. Vincent, supra, at 269-270.
  
  Public property which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication is governed by different standards. We have recognized that the "First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., supra, at 129. In addition to time, place, and manner regulations, the State may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view. 453 U.S., at 131 , n. 7. As we have stated on several occasions, "`"[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated."'" Id., at 129-130, quoting Greer v. Spock, 424 U.S. 828, 836 (1976), in turn quoting Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1966).
  
  . . . .
  
  In the Court of Appeals' view, however, the access policy adopted by the Perry schools favors [460 U.S. 37, 49] a particular viewpoint, that of PEA, on labor relations, and consequently must be strictly scrutinized regardless of whether a public forum is involved. There is, however, no indication that the School Board intended to discourage one viewpoint and advance another. We believe it is more accurate to characterize the access policy as based on the status of the respective unions rather than their views. Implicit in the concept of the nonpublic forum is the right to make distinctions in access on the basis of subject matter and speaker identity. These distinctions may be impermissible in a public forum but are inherent and inescapable in the process of limiting a nonpublic forum to activities compatible with the intended purpose of the property. The touchstone for evaluating these distinctions is whether they are reasonable in light of the purpose which the forum at issue serves.

Get it now?

You're still not talking about distinguishing on the basis of political content. No one suggested that West Virginia, or whoever was kicking these people out, restricted all tee shirts with political content -- there were people in Bush shirts who were not kicked out.