The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: What do you think about this

  1. #11
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duk4me View Post
    Passed a car with a pictureNot a poster, not a bumper sticker a picture and just where was this picture affixed on said vehicle? In your imagination perhaps to start a thread.

    If not your imagination poor taste if your imagination poorer taste...just wondering.
    Actually it was a picture printed on paper like you would off a computer, so yes not a poster, not a bumper sticker and why would it matter where it was on the car?
    I think I have started enough threads and really I am not that desperate to post there that I have to make things up thanks.
    Not exctly sure why you would want to call me a liar....talk about poor taste
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

  2. #12
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    I wonder if this was the original source for the photo. It was published last May but someone may have picked it up.


    Roswell paper takes heat on Obama photo

    By AJC | Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 08:14 AM
    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    The Roswell Beacon is taking heat over a cover photograph that shows Sen. Barack Obama in a rifle’s cross hairs.
    The photograph, published May 15, runs with an article about how law enforcement agencies were dealing with the rise in threats against Obama by white supremacist groups, some of whom are apparently based around North Fulton.
    Officials at the free weekly defend the photograph, but it’s triggered numerous complaints.
    Was the cover appropriate given the topic or too incendiary?


    ----------------

    EDIT: The image posted in the newspaper may be seen here -- http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/02/85/86/image_7086852.jpg. I didn't post the image here since some might find it too objectionable.
    I had not seen that, but no that is not what it was. It was an immage like the ones they had on the American flag of BHO and a number of posters. Not in actualy lifelike color, but still in colors.... I don't know how to describe it exactly
    More like this immage

    http://cgi.ebay.com/**Barrack-Obama-...21154001r37902
    Last edited by badbullgator; 01-26-2009 at 07:51 AM.
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    2,770

    Default

    I think it depends on what side of the isle your on.
    Most libs would find it in bad taste as would most Rep.s
    The sad part is if the cross hairs were on bush most libs would think its cute
    We are such a free country that we will vote ourselves right into slavery

    Pete

  4. #14
    Senior Member Matt McKenzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,632

    Default

    Like much of what we see today, it is disappointing and in poor taste, but protected from GOVERNMENT action by the first ammendment. Fortunately we live in the greatest country in the world where even idiots like that can make political statements without fear of reprisal from the government. However, the first amendment does not prevent his fellow citizens from calling him an ignoranus.
    Matt McKenzie

    It takes as long as it takes. Sometimes longer.

    "It is better to own a $50,000 dog and have an old truck and crummy equipment than to own $50,000 worth of new equipment and a crummy dog..." EdA

  5. #15
    Senior Member duk4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    NE Texas
    Posts
    2,936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badbullgator View Post
    Actually it was a picture printed on paper like you would off a computer, so yes not a poster, not a bumper sticker and why would it matter where it was on the car?
    I think I have started enough threads and really I am not that desperate to post there that I have to make things up thanks.
    Not exctly sure why you would want to call me a liar....talk about poor taste
    My bad bbg you have my public apology. My comment was done in the spur of the moment but still was in poor taste. I will exercise greater caution in the future.

    Sorry,

    Tim

  6. #16
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hookset View Post
    Like much of what we see today, it is disappointing and in poor taste, but protected from GOVERNMENT action by the first ammendment. Fortunately we live in the greatest country in the world where even idiots like that can make political statements without fear of reprisal from the government. However, the first amendment does not prevent his fellow citizens from calling him an ignoranus.

    Matt
    I totally agree, but I still wonder IF the IS covered under the first amendment. On one hand I like to think that you are truly able to freely express yourself and have total freedom of speech. On the other hand I wonder at what point it crosses the line and becomes a threat. I honestly don’t know legally where that line is drawn. I suppose that if this same picture encouraged someone to do something or insinuated that the person with the picture was going to do something it would be a threat.
    I don’t like what I saw, but I do remember seeing MANY similar things with OBL’s face and likeness on them in crosshairs and other situations implying killing him. As much as I see this, the BHO picture, in very poor taste I have to guess that it is in fact covered under the first amendment if those with OBL were. Not an endorsement for OBL, just an example and you could substitute any other bad guy in place of OBL.
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

  7. #17
    Senior Member brian breuer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Minot, ND
    Posts
    479

    Default

    Regardless of which president it is, I would think it would be very close to threatening the president.

    The first ammendment obviously has limitations, especially with certain circumstances, such as airports, crowded public events, and sitting presidents.

    Besides poor taste, I would think you are leaving yourself open to interpretation for having very serious charges filed. Very gray area.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Steve Amrein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    St. Peters, MO
    Posts
    1,866

    Default

    I think the guy that has it on his car is a jackazz. I can say that because we, as of now live in a free country and still have the 1st amendment. Just as offensive is rev right, david duke, and a whole host of jack legs. All of which I stand behind their right to free speech. Sadly it is becoming more and more that guys like this will be even prosicuted for hate crimes while farrakan (sp) right and other (Just as offensive) get a pass. Just recentlty I heard on the radio that some bishops that were excumunicated have been reinstated. One of the guys had said that not 1 jew had been killed in the gas chamber and the US was responsible for 9-11. I cant wait for the fairness doctrine.
    "Communism only works in Heaven, where they don't need it, and in Hell, where they already have it" Ronald Reagan

  9. #19
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    I also find it tasteless, but fortunately for most of us that is not a crime. When you wear your brains on your bumper you have to be willing to put up with whatever reactions you receive.

  10. #20
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Mims
    Posts
    7,055

    Default

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/news...35798

    Oklahoma City officer pulls man over for anti-Obama sign

    By McClatchy-Tribune
    Published: 2/19/2009 5:37 AM
    Last Modified: 2/19/2009 9:44 AM
    ENID - An Oklahoma City police officer wrongly pulled over a man last week and confiscated an anti-President Barack Obama sign the man had on his vehicle.
    The officer misinterpreted the sign as threatening, said Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, and took the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn."
    Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police car followed him for several miles and then signaled for him to pull over.
    "I pulled over, knowing I hadn't done anything wrong," Harrison said in a recent phone interview.
    When the officer asked Harrison if he knew why he had been pulled over, Harrison said he did not.
    "They said, 'It's because of the sign in your window,'" Harrison said.
    "It's not meant to be a threat, it's a statement about abortion," Harrison said.
    He said he disagrees with the president's position on abortion.
    "I asked the officer, 'Do you know what abort means?'" Harrison said. "He said, 'Yeah, it means to kill.' I said, 'No, it means to remove or terminate.'"
    Harrison said his sign was to be interpreted as saying something like: Remove Obama from office, not unborn babies from the womb.
    The officers confiscated Harrison's sign and gave him a slip of paper that stated he was part of an investigation.
    Harrison said he later received a call from a person who said he was a lieutenant supervisor for the Internal Investigations Department and wanted to know his location and return his sign to him.
    According to Harrison, the supervisor said the Secret Service had been contacted on the matter and had told them the sign was not a threat to the president.
    Harrison was asked if he would like to file a complaint. He said he was not sure but would take the paperwork, just in case.
    But his run-in with the law wasn't over yet.
    "The Secret Service called and said they were at my house," Harrison said.
    After talking to his attorney, Harrison went home where he met the Secret Service.
    "When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups."
    Harrison said he invited the Secret Service agents into the house and they were "very cordial."
    "We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said.
    He said they interviewed him for about 30 minutes and then left, not finding any evidence Harrison was a threat to the president.
    "I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison said. "I don't know what I'm going to do."
    Harrison said he feels his First Amendment rights were violated.
    McCool said the officer who pulled over Harrison misinterpreted the sign.
    "We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant."
    McCool said the sign basically meant Obama should be impeached and it was not a threat.
    "(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."
    McCool said although the sign should not have been confiscated, the situation was made right in the end.
    "We always try to do the right thing and in the end we believe we did the right thing by returning the sign," McCool said.
    Enid Police Department Capt. Dean Grassino said such an incident most likely would not have occurred in Enid.
    "We wouldn't pull over anybody for a bumper sticker or a sign like that unless it was a safety issue," he said.
    Grassino said a safety issue would be a sign that obstructs the view of the driver.
    "We wouldn't do it based on the views of the bumper sticker or sign," Grassino said. If a sign was undoubtedly a threat to the president, Grassino said it is not within the jurisdiction of the city police to handle that and the FBI or the Secret Service would be called before any action was taken.
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •