Voters in PA greeted today by Panthers, Murals

I would have covered the mural if it were my call. It seems to violate the intent of the law. The law disallows election posters/signs inside or within 10 (not 100) feet of the polling place. This mural has nothing to do with the election, but it still violates the spirit of the law and there is no reason not to cover it. But to whine about it being some sort of attempt to stop Republicans from voting as Dixie, brava and others have is ridiculous. There is no proof of that.

The mention of the Black Panther leader is even more revealing of the level of whining and bias of the article. There is not even any indication that he was engaging in any form of electioneering. Just a vague mention that he was seen outside.

I dont see anything in the law that indicates individuals should not be able to wear shirts or pins. Further, I don't support such laws. People, should be able to wear whatever they want. As long as they are not actively soliciting votes inside the polling place who cares? But then this is not a fundemental right like who you may marry or controlling your reproductive processes and so I certainly am open to allowing the state and locals some discretion as long as it is consistently applied. Ditzy, though, being an unprincipled piece of shit will whine about this from whatever angle he thinks will most benefit his own interest.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=pennsylvania%20electioneering%20statute%20no%20one%20may%20campaign%2C%20post%20campaign%20signs%2C%20or%20distribute%20campaign%20material%20&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nass.org%2Findex.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D1347%26Itemid%3D&ei=jISZUOuzL6aa2AXTvYHoCg&usg=AFQjCNHcXHVxceQCMg-3LjVExqs1Sz3wkQ
 
Dixie said:
Let me make sure I have democrats straight here, If my public school wants to paint a cross with Jesus on the mural in the cafeteria, you're okay with that, because government isn't actively endorsing any religion. It is merely a passive gesture.

Is that your position?
Click to expand...

No. That is not relevant at all.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
No. That is not relevant at all.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. If we are going to change the meaning of "passive" to include murals, then it most certainly could be relevant to Christian displays, why the hell not? As long as the government isn't "actively" promoting an establishment of religion, this should be allowed. If the mural in question doesn't "actively" promote Obama, then how could a mural of Jesus be "actively" promoting a religion? You think you could step down from your moral high horse and answer that, Stringy? Or is it just because you say so?
 
cannabis said:
odd how you ignored the thread when a supposed republican was told to cover their shirt that said "vote bible"
Click to expand...

Why, is it odd? I think the laws prohibiting "passive electioneering," especially relating to a citizen's dress, are offensive. If I were a judge I would rule them in violation of the first amendment.

But if that is the law then it is up to the election officials to enforce it.

It's not the law in Pennsylvania and does not seem to be the intent of the law. But still that is up to the election officials. I am okay with the judge's choice and this is without any doubt an example of judicial activism. He seems to be applying the intent of the law and I don't think he was stretching too far to overrule the election officials. If he had ruled that individuals had to be turned away from the poll because of the mural or because of their shirts then that would be a different matter entirely.

I am more concerned with the rights of individuals. Nobody's rights were violated by the mural and it's intent was not electioneering. But Ditzy squeals about it anyway and now is trying to spin this into arguing for the power of government agents to push the ideas he wants them to push.
 
Dixie said:
Sure it is. If we are going to change the meaning of "passive" to include murals, then it most certainly could be relevant to Christian displays, why the hell not? As long as the government isn't "actively" promoting an establishment of religion, this should be allowed. If the mural in question doesn't "actively" promote Obama, then how could a mural of Jesus be "actively" promoting a religion? You think you could step down from your moral high horse and answer that, Stringy? Or is it just because you say so?
Click to expand...

Nobody, is changing the definition of passive, dumbfuck. A mural is absolutely passive and this one was not even soliciting a vote. The word passive is not even part of the law in Pennsylvania and has nothing to with the first amendment but that tangent is more about a general trend seeking to extend the electioneering laws to cover tshirts and other nonsense. Pennsylvania's does not seem to cover tshirts.
 
cannabis said:
and of course zappa enters the fray with nothing but derision and petty personal attacks

two faced hack
Click to expand...

And in typical Yurt fashion, Yurt ignores the LIES in the thread title and the OP to instead attack me.

A pity Yurt won't do what he demands others do and call out BOTH sides.
 
cannabis said:
so you would be ok if a member of that WHITE political organization (which is of course what i meant mr. obtuse) stood outside a polling station?
Click to expand...


Are you saying members of that WHITE political organization True the Vote AREN'T standing around outside polling places all across this country right now?
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Nobody, is changing the definition of passive, dumbfuck. A mural is absolutely passive and this one was not even soliciting a vote. The word passive is not even part of the law in Pennsylvania and has nothing to with the first amendment but that tangent is more about a general trend seeking to extend the electioneering laws to cover tshirts and other nonsense. Pennsylvania's does not seem to cover tshirts.
Click to expand...

Pennsylvania's law allows for "passive electioneering" and this has apparently, a lot of leeway, if murals are included. Most sane rational people would think it means unintentional or secondary campaigning, like "vote the bible" on a t-shirt, or a tie with a pattern of the DNC logo. But apparently, it means anything that isn't "active" or "talking," and that could include quite a bit. But the ramifications of this newfound interpretation, could also affect the imaginary wall between church and state, in my opinion. If murals are not "active" in promoting or endorsing a candidate, they shouldn't suddenly be "active" when they feature religious icons. If they are also "passive" like the mural in debate, then the government can't be "actively" endorsing anything.

If Democrats want to argue murals are "passive electioneering" then murals can also be "passively religious" and not a violation of the 1st. I just wanted to make sure Democrats were okay with that, because in the past, they haven't been.
 
Dixie said:
Pennsylvania's law allows for "passive electioneering" and this has apparently, a lot of leeway, if murals are included. Most sane rational people would think it means unintentional or secondary campaigning, like "vote the bible" on a t-shirt, or a tie with a pattern of the DNC logo. But apparently, it means anything that isn't "active" or "talking," and that could include quite a bit. But the ramifications of this newfound interpretation, could also affect the imaginary wall between church and state, in my opinion. If murals are not "active" in promoting or endorsing a candidate, they shouldn't suddenly be "active" when they feature religious icons. If they are also "passive" like the mural in debate, then the government can't be "actively" endorsing anything.

If Democrats want to argue murals are "passive electioneering" then murals can also be "passively religious" and not a violation of the 1st. I just wanted to make sure Democrats were okay with that, because in the past, they haven't been.
Click to expand...

The law does not necessarily allow for anything it is what it prohibits. It prohibits people from electioneering or soliciting votes within the polling place and the posting of printed material except as specified by the law. It also prohibits people other than voters and election officials from being within 10 feet of the polling place. The mural, as it is not printed and does not solicit a vote, is not clearly prohibited. There is nothing in the law that seems to clearly indicate that someone can't wear a "vote the bible" tshirt. But these are matters for the election officials to decide and the laws and decisions may vary from one state to the next.

This has absolutely no connection to freedom of religion. Your logical leaps are fucking absurd.

But, since you are the one grasping for a connection it seems you are okay with a judge telling schools to take down religios icons, whether they are passive or not.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Are you saying members of that WHITE political organization True the Vote AREN'T standing around outside polling places all across this country right now?
Click to expand...

are they? i don't even know who they are. prove your assertion. and don't forget to prove they are specifically WHITE. unlike the NBP who specifically claims to be for black politics and has talked about killing white people and jews.

my hunch is you are full of meadowmuffins.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And in typical Yurt fashion, Yurt ignores the LIES in the thread title and the OP to instead attack me.

A pity Yurt won't do what he demands others do and call out BOTH sides.
Click to expand...

what do i demand others do? go on, prove your claim asswipe. you are the one running around the board bitching and moaning about petty attacks and derision, YET, you constantly engage in it. i, on the other hand, do not complain, thus, you LIED about me demanding of others, when in reality you are projecting you dishonest whiny baby.
 
TheRocketSurgeon said:
Why, is it odd? I think the laws prohibiting "passive electioneering," especially relating to a citizen's dress, are offensive. If I were a judge I would rule them in violation of the first amendment.

But if that is the law then it is up to the election officials to enforce it.

It's not the law in Pennsylvania and does not seem to be the intent of the law. But still that is up to the election officials. I am okay with the judge's choice and this is without any doubt an example of judicial activism. He seems to be applying the intent of the law and I don't think he was stretching too far to overrule the election officials. If he had ruled that individuals had to be turned away from the poll because of the mural or because of their shirts then that would be a different matter entirely.

I am more concerned with the rights of individuals. Nobody's rights were violated by the mural and it's intent was not electioneering. But Ditzy squeals about it anyway and now is trying to spin this into arguing for the power of government agents to push the ideas he wants them to push.
Click to expand...

it is odd given your vigorous defense of a liberal so called passive electioneering.

you were completely silent about a supposed conservative so called passive electioneering.
 
Dixie said:
I have a funny feeling, if Klansmen showed up at a voting precinct in Mississippi, something would be said.

I also feel like, if a voting precinct had a giant mural of Romney on the wall, someone would complain about that.

If Democrat poll watchers were kicked out of a precinct, I think maybe Democrats would protest it.

Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would object because the picture of Mitt would have been put up for the election. The mural there now is a perm. piece of art in honor of the President of the United States. It is not electioneering.
 
cannabis said:
it is odd given your vigorous defense of a liberal so called passive electioneering.

you were completely silent about a supposed conservative so called passive electioneering.
Click to expand...

The intent of the mural has nothing to do with electioneering, at all. He is the President, a historic figure in our country and whether racist douchebags like Ditzy likes it or not, an inspiration to many young people. I would have covered it up, just to shut up the whiny lil twits on the right but there is no proof of anything sinister or that it is electioneering.

As for the tshirts... It seems that is the way they are applying the law in Texas. I read their law from my link and it seems vague too. But if their officials read it as excluding tshirts then, I guess. It does not appear that's the way they apply the law in Pa. I could understand if someone turned themselves into a billboard, but a tshirt, who gives a crap. I think the laws that attempt to bar passive electioneering of that sort are stupid.

Still, I don't believe your right to represent with a tshirt at the polling place is a fundamental one like reproduction or marriage and there is a legitimate state interest in preventing intimidation. So I would give the locals some discretion and its really not that big of an issue either way. Meanwhile, Ditzy wants a federal law based on a knee jerk reaction to two stories from his spam chains.
 
Dixie said:
A Pennsylvania judge is issuing an order to reinstate Republican election officials across Philadelphia who allegedly were ejected or refused entry by on-site Democratic voting chief judges, GOP officials tell Fox News.
One Republican official claimed that "just under 70" Republican election officials were blocked from Philadelphia polling sites Tuesday morning by Democrats on site. One of them, the official claimed, "was shoved out of the polling place."
"For this many inspectors to be ejected from polling places is rare, even for Philadelphia," the official told FoxNews.com.
Elsewhere in the city, a representative from the New Black Panther Party was also spotted outside a polling site. The New Black Panthers stirred controversy in 2008 when members appeared outside a polling site, one of them holding a billy club. The representative seen Tuesday morning was not armed.
The flap over the election judges, though, was widespread. Republicans claim they are obtaining a series of court orders to seat the so-called election "inspectors," and sheriff's deputies will be available to escort them.
Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.
"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats. Part of the problem, he said, is that the Republican inspectors are appointed on relatively short notice, leading to a string of confrontations on Election Day.
"There are no cool heads here," Voigt said.
The on-site election officials are responsible for verifying the identity of voters, and monitoring for signs of fraud or disenfranchisement.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hiladelphia-election-officials/#ixzz2BSv54ZVb

Further, one polling site in Philadelphia apparently had a mural of President Obama emblazoned on the wall directly behind the voting machines. The mural, at a local school being used as a polling site, contained the words "change!" and "hope," along with a quote from the president.
Republicans were drawing attention to the image Tuesday morning, with one Mitt Romney spokesman tweeting: "Voters in Philly's Ward 35 are being forced to cast their ballots next to this."
Pennsylvania election law states "no person within a polling place may electioneer or solicit votes for any political party, political body, or candidate, nor may any unauthorized written or printed materials be posted within the polling place."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hiladelphia-election-officials/#ixzz2BSvzcIEA

View attachment 1874
Click to expand...

tumblr_m7ber9ILRA1qlqfvy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top