Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Most likely when it comes to secret service access control, it's solely up to their discretion.
That doesn't follow. I was the one expressing cynicism regarding someone else's possible motives.
Right, which they can document when plaintiff’s lawyers demand it.
She’s suing to be given fair treatment despite her having Poked fun at a High Political Figure.
It will make for a fun trial, which it’s never going to get to; we can but dream!
Where does the gofundme appear?, my cursory search turned up nothing.
All I did was put in the first and last name followed by Gofundme.
Personally I'm not expecting it to get that far, but will be cha-ching cha-ching all the way.
If only you stuck to the topic itself half as much as you go on and on about other posters and how dissatisfied you are with their posts.
I demand nothing. I would appreciate it if you would participate in discussions in good faith and support your opinions with actual evidence.
The only existing evidence for my impression of the couch cat person is in the video clips I watched. What else could you possibly be thinking of outside of that? How she presents herself on social media clips about the VP is the only relevant factor that I know of. So tell me what's being left out, so that you can prove your I'm arguing in bad faith accusations.
So you keep saying and saying over and over, despite the fact that I have no unshared or hidden thoughts on the matter. This is my last response to you in this or any other thread. Note that I will not see your reply to this post, or any other post I make, ever.
No, that is the difference between saying you think my avatar is Jimmy Kimmel and stating it is Jimmy Kimmel. It is a distinction without as difference as far as what you are saying.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else. The only posts I've made in this thread have been to challenge your assertions about the government's authority to arbitrarily exclude a member of the public from public, government-funded events based solely on the person's free and protected speech.
As I've said in previous posts... Government bouncers like Secret Service, TSA, FPS, PSO etc. Their job is to bar access and remove people. If they think someone might possibly be problem in any way, they're going to deny access.
Perhaps, but they cannot violate people's rights in doing so.
Is this just your opinion, or do you have concrete evidence to back it up? Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.
"Privilege," in this context, is a very vague term. Yes, it is a privilege - but the privilege is conditioned on compliance with the rules of the event, not the potential that the VP's fee-fees might get hurt. Either way though, the right being violated here is not a right to access an event, but rather McGonigle's First Amendment right to free speech. She registered for a public, government-funded event, complied with all rules of said event, and was denied access based solely on her speech - in other words, she is being punished by a government entity for speech, which is something expressly forbidden by the First Amendment.
My argument is representative of what I believe the defence will present. Your argument is representative of what you believe the plaintiff will present. We will have to wait and see which one prevails in court.
