JEB! On Oregon Mass Shootings - "Stuff Happens"

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
The limitations put in place on Fremont Street are modeled after similar restrictions in California. Courts have not struck these limitations down. It appears that the courts are in agreement with me.


Wait a minute. You have constantly called for banning the street performers. The casinos and the city have tried to do that for over a decade and each time they were defeated in court because it infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech.

A. So now you've grudgingly changed your mind and no longer want them banned and you're happy to have them on Fremont street...only in 6 foot circles....is that what you're saying?
B. Or do you still think they should be banned because people are offended by them and can't ignore them and it hurts business downtown?
C. Or do you now recognize they have a constitutional right to be on Fremont street---dressed how they dress---and saying what they say?

A, B or C? Which is it.....today?
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
My comment is very relevant. Speech is limited, and the sane should set the limits, not the nuts.


What you're really saying that since people can't go around naked or threatening others, the government should control what we say and how we dress. Not in America buddy. You don't like Freedom of Speech, move to Russia to be with your big government commie idols. They'd never allow Free Speech in Red Square either.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
... however it wouldn't bother tremendously to see a few of the costumes be ,uh, umm, not be allowed? Did I just say that?


You know on the surface it seems benign....they ban some people in costumes and it helps downtown Vegas. That's how it starts. We lose our rights a tiny bit at a time...they keep chipping away until eventually someone in power doesn't like the way you look or dress or what you're saying and you're tossed in jail. I'd rather go in the other direction where the Government has less control over what I say or how I dress.

And I am especially offended by people who take their obnoxious stinky little brats to the Fremont street party at night.


I know and I agree for the most part. I'm extremely offended by the Govt. taking more and more rights from the people. Where we live it sure does seem like the Government(s) keep taking away more and more of our liberty's/choices. I suppose we're all too stupid to live on our own. I don't know, Fremont just seems like a unique situation(it is the only place like it that I'm aware of) and it's gotten a bit out of hand. If the intent is to make it a blast for drunken frat boys or the drunken party guys in general, let 'em go naked (I'd be all for that), why stop where it is? Couldn't naked be claimed as a first amendment right as well, making a statement for whatever cause someone wants to claim? Lady Godiva day?

Where is the line drawn? Truly the sticking point. I just don't see the Fremont street freak costumes as going to the forefront of any first amendment wars.

I'd really love to see a survey on how many approve.
At what point is the line drawn?

I just took a quick look at tripadvisor and on the first page(latest is 2013?) there's mention of the street performers and there's none positive.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g45963-d102514-r168788747-Fremont_Street_Experience-Las_Vegas_Nevada.html

I'd rather have them banned.


Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
The limitations put in place on Fremont Street are modeled after similar restrictions in California. Courts have not struck these limitations down. It appears that the courts are in agreement with me.


Wait a minute. You have constantly called for banning the street performers. The casinos and the city have tried to do that for over a decade and each time they were defeated in court because it infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech.

A. So now you've grudgingly changed your mind and no longer want them banned and you're happy to have them on Fremont street...only in 6 foot circles....is that what you're saying?
B. Or do you still think they should be banned because people are offended by them and can't ignore them and it hurts business downtown?
C. Or do you now recognize they have a constitutional right to be on Fremont street---dressed how they dress---and saying what they say?

A, B or C? Which is it.....today?



Boiler also believes that a privately owned business should be able to set policy on smoking, drinking, dress, speech, and so on. Liberals, again, put little value in the rights of the property owner.


Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
My comment is very relevant. Speech is limited, and the sane should set the limits, not the nuts.


What you're really saying that since people can't go around naked or threatening others, the government should control what we say and how we dress. Not in America buddy. You don't like Freedom of Speech, move to Russia to be with your big government commie idols. They'd never allow Free Speech in Red Square either.


Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Boiler also believes that a privately owned business should be able to set policy on smoking, drinking, dress, speech, and so on. Liberals, again, put little value in the rights of the property owner.


The fremont street performers have already been banned from the casinos. They just can ban them from the public square.

Does Alanleroy believe that a private property owner should be able to set smoking rules? I guessing that he does not.




Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Boiler also believes that a privately owned business should be able to set policy on smoking, drinking, dress, speech, and so on. Liberals, again, put little value in the rights of the property owner.


The fremont street performers have already been banned from the casinos. They just can ban them from the public square.


I believe that the posters who spend hours and hours arguing with each other on this board, should dedicate the same amount of time next week to stepping away from the computer and doing something useful to make the world a better place.

I also still believe that marcisdave is an obnoxious twat for having politicized the Umpqua shooting while there were still chunks of brain and skull on the classroom floor
I see that Obama spent the day flying to Oregon but has never found the time to even call the Steinle family after their daughter was murdered by an illegal who had been deported multiple time an was hiding in a sanctuary city.
Quote

Originally posted by: Campion
I believe that the posters who spend hours and hours arguing with each other on this board, should dedicate the same amount of time next week to stepping away from the computer and doing something useful to make the world a better place.


You must be a slow reader. I don't think these arguments have taken more than 15 minutes of my time. I kind of resent this Campion because you have no idea what or how much we do in the real world.

Do you ever watch TV or listen to music or read books or magazines or Facebook or browse the net or goof off? Maybe you should step away from that and start doing something useful to make the world a better place....See how that works?

The real irony is that Boillerman and I were actually arguing about a LAS VEGAS topic on a LAS VEGAS message board....about whether the Street Performers on Fremont street should be banned or whether they have a right to be there. You can't make this shit up.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now