Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:01 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,083,710 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

As is typical of those who rely on NewsMax... the rest of the story.

Hutchinson said the ban was supposed to only deal with banners and signs “affixed to real property or fixtures” and not signs or banners held by a person.
“That should have been more clearly stated,” Hutchinson wrote in the email.

Coldwater Clarifies Tea Party Sign Ban [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:02 PM
 
11,531 posts, read 10,301,883 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by enemy country View Post
I dont want to see a bunch of racist hateful signs put up everywhere.
They still have a right to carry them. However, if they are requesting to place their billboards or signs on public property, I think the state has a right to refuse them. Does McDonald's have a right to put a huge sign in a public library or school?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,860,904 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
Define educated? Having a degree? Perhaps they hold more degrees, but they certainly have a problem with spelling and reading comprehension.
Because a couple people held up signs at a rally that allegedly had misspelled words on them? If this is anything like the claims of racism that some of you constantly make based on 4 or 5 pictures of signs that were taken years ago then I'm not too worried.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,860,904 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by enemy country View Post
I dont want to see a bunch of racist hateful signs put up everywhere.
Unbelievable. Simply un-F'in-believable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:05 PM
 
11,531 posts, read 10,301,883 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
As is typical of those who rely on NewsMax... the rest of the story.

Hutchinson said the ban was supposed to only deal with banners and signs “affixed to real property or fixtures” and not signs or banners held by a person.
“That should have been more clearly stated,” Hutchinson wrote in the email.

Coldwater Clarifies Tea Party Sign Ban [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
I suspected this before i read your link. The editors and reporters at NewsMax are either incompetent, lazy, or just plain dishonest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,860,904 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
As is typical of those who rely on NewsMax... the rest of the story.

Hutchinson said the ban was supposed to only deal with banners and signs “affixed to real property or fixtures” and not signs or banners held by a person.
“That should have been more clearly stated,” Hutchinson wrote in the email.

Coldwater Clarifies Tea Party Sign Ban [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
Actually, your link proves that they're right and the ban wasn't clear.

Quote:
The legal counsel for the City of Coldwater said he anticipates working out a solution to the lawsuit filed by a tea party group that had its signs banned from a city park without going to court. Attorney John Hutchinson said in an email he will be working with the attorney of the Common Sense Patriots of Coldwater to come up with an amendment to the ban.
Hutchinson said the ban was supposed to only deal with banners and signs “affixed to real property or fixtures” and not signs or banners held by a person.
“That should have been more clearly stated,” Hutchinson wrote in the email.
Hutchinson stated he would work with the tea party group’s attorney to get language that would clarify the policy and he believes the City Council would adopt the amendment.

The ban they created applied to all signs, not just those being posted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,860,904 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
I suspected this before i read your link. The editors and reporters at NewsMax are either incompetent, lazy, or just plain dishonest.
You clearly didn't read his link, the ban needs to be amended to be more clear and that comes from the city attorney, not the Tea Party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 10,233,570 times
Reputation: 2536
Quote:
Originally Posted by enemy country View Post
I dont want to see a bunch of racist hateful signs put up everywhere.
The article said the signs were.

The suit said the Patriots met five times in the park carrying messages such as "No More Taxes," "Give Me Liberty . . . Not Debt," and "Born Free . . . Taxed to Death."



So you sea racist is no more taxes, you see hate with give me liberty, you think born free is racist.

Thanks for defining yourself
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:13 PM
 
11,531 posts, read 10,301,883 times
Reputation: 3580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
The ban they created applied to all signs, not just those being posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
Hutchinson said the ban was supposed to only deal with banners and signs “affixed to real property or fixtures” and not signs or banners held by a person.
Reading is fundamental
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-12-2011, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Reality
9,949 posts, read 8,860,904 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire View Post
Reading is fundamental
Reading is fundamental and so is basic comprehension.

"Hutchinson said the ban was supposed to only deal with banners and signs “affixed to real property or fixtures” and not signs or banners held by a person" but it doesn't. The law or ban that they passed affects ALL signs but that wasn't their intention so they intend to amend the ban to cover ONLY signs posted and not carried.

The city admitted the law wasn't clear and they're working to amend it, they wanted to stop signs from being posted in the park but were fine with people carrying signs but the language of the law isn't clear and the Tea Party spoke up about it in the form of a law suit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top