• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

OKC officer pulls man over for anti-Obama sign on vehicle

This thread has nothing to do with race. The debatable issue is whether or not the bumper sticker insinuated a death threat to Obama. My take on it is that clearly it's not a serious death threat. But it was a blatant enough insinuation that they driver deserved a bit of bother from an officer inclined to give it to him. You're not allowed to joke about offing the Prez.

It's not a joke at all, well not on the life of the President (who's just a guy, there's plenty of people in this country that can do the job...hell that's what the VP is for) and he didn't do anything to be pulled over and harassed by a cop. There was nothing there that was a serious threat on the Presidents life in the least and I don't think you should be able to be harassed and have your property taken over political commentary and dissent. Especially dissent.
 
It's not a joke at all, well not on the life of the President (who's just a guy, there's plenty of people in this country that can do the job...hell that's what the VP is for) and he didn't do anything to be pulled over and harassed by a cop. There was nothing there that was a serious threat on the Presidents life in the least and I don't think you should be able to be harassed and have your property taken over political commentary and dissent. Especially dissent.

You are not legally allowed to even josh around about killing the Prez. Even if you are obviously just kidding around. You can hate on the President, say all kinds of untoward crap about the guy, but you can't say he should be killed.

I do believe there's a sound argument to made that "abort" has multiple meanings. So there is a defense to be made that the driver was not insinuating Obama should be killed. However that's a defense easily made in court. The cop was well within his rights to pull the guy over if the cop viewed the bumper sticker as suggesting Obama should be killed. Relating the term abort to kill isn't an overstretch in my opinion.

Had the bumper sticker said Obama is a retard. Obama is a socialist monkey. Obama is a jackass etc. I'd agree with you that the cop was abusing his power and attempting to illegally squash dissent. But as abort is a term that can and often does mean kill, terminate, do away with I disagree with ya.
 
You are not legally allowed to even josh around about killing the Prez. Even if you are obviously just kidding around. You can hate on the President, say all kinds of untoward crap about the guy, but you can't say he should be killed.

Says who? The government...they can piss off. They don't get to make the rules. We were built upon revolution, if we were ever to revolt again we would have to talk about offing politicians. I don't agree with the law because I can make fun of anyone else, I can joke about shooting a whole long list of people. Hell, I can make the comment halfway serious without getting arrested. The President isn't anything special, he's just a guy. There should be no special rules which apply to him. If I can say something about a guy, and I can say the same thing about the President.

I do believe there's a sound argument to made that "abort" has multiple meanings. So there is a defense to be made that the driver was not insinuating Obama should be killed. However that's a defense easily made in court. The cop was well within his rights to pull the guy over if the cop viewed the bumper sticker as suggesting Obama should be killed. Relating the term abort to kill isn't an overstretch in my opinion.

Cops do not have rights. Well I mean, they have rights as individuals, they don't have rights as police officer. They have privilege and duty granted to them by the People, but there is nothing inherent in the job which gives them rights. Cops must have their power checked and minimized, especially when it comes to political dissent which must be one of the most highly valued and defended of all rights. There was no credible threat posed by the bumper sticker.

Had the bumper sticker said Obama is a retard. Obama is a socialist monkey. Obama is a jackass etc. I'd agree with you that the cop was abusing his power and attempting to illegally squash dissent. But as abort is a term that can and often does mean kill, terminate, do away with I disagree with ya.

A bumper sticker is a bumper sticker, it can't do anything other than express an opinion. Expressing an opinion shouldn't get you in trouble in this country nor should it mean probable cause for the authority to come down on you.
 
Says who? The government...they can piss off. They don't get to make the rules. We were built upon revolution, if we were ever to revolt again we would have to talk about offing politicians. I don't agree with the law because I can make fun of anyone else, I can joke about shooting a whole long list of people. Hell, I can make the comment halfway serious without getting arrested. The President isn't anything special, he's just a guy. There should be no special rules which apply to him. If I can say something about a guy, and I can say the same thing about the President.



Cops do not have rights. Well I mean, they have rights as individuals, they don't have rights as police officer. They have privilege and duty granted to them by the People, but there is nothing inherent in the job which gives them rights. Cops must have their power checked and minimized, especially when it comes to political dissent which must be one of the most highly valued and defended of all rights. There was no credible threat posed by the bumper sticker.



A bumper sticker is a bumper sticker, it can't do anything other than express an opinion. Expressing an opinion shouldn't get you in trouble in this country nor should it mean probable cause for the authority to come down on you.

In case you didn't know, Ikari, the First Amendment is not absolute.

I see a pattern with you. Your opinion is your opinion, and anyone who disagrees with you is WRONG WRONG WRONG. :roll:
 
In case you didn't know, Ikari, the First Amendment is not absolute.

I see a pattern with you. Your opinion is your opinion, and anyone who disagrees with you is WRONG WRONG WRONG. :roll:

I notice a pattern with you. You're willing to squash the rights of the individual if it gets you what you want. So what? Is this not a debate board? Can I not state my opinion on the matter? Sounds more like you think I'm wrong and because if it I shouldn't get to talk. Sorry that all my arguments are based in the innate and inalienable rights of the individual and that you have a problem with it, but you can either discuss it or ignore it. These little digs are the only thing you've posted at me, and it's pointless little insult and nothing more.

And BTW, I didn't say it was unlimited. I said if I can say something about some guy, I can say the same thing about the President. That's it. Thanks for reading. kthanxbia.
 
Last edited:
Says who? The government...they can piss off. They don't get to make the rules. We were built upon revolution, if we were ever to revolt again we would have to talk about offing politicians. I don't agree with the law because I can make fun of anyone else, I can joke about shooting a whole long list of people. Hell, I can make the comment halfway serious without getting arrested. The President isn't anything special, he's just a guy. There should be no special rules which apply to him. If I can say something about a guy, and I can say the same thing about the President.



Cops do not have rights. Well I mean, they have rights as individuals, they don't have rights as police officer. They have privilege and duty granted to them by the People, but there is nothing inherent in the job which gives them rights. Cops must have their power checked and minimized, especially when it comes to political dissent which must be one of the most highly valued and defended of all rights. There was no credible threat posed by the bumper sticker.



A bumper sticker is a bumper sticker, it can't do anything other than express an opinion. Expressing an opinion shouldn't get you in trouble in this country nor should it mean probable cause for the authority to come down on you.

Well that's all another debate entirely. I was merely answering the question from a, "Did this cop overstep his bounds as the law stands right now..." perspective.

If your opinion is that folks should be able to say the President needs to be killed without consequence that's a whole other issue entirely and not speaking to this thread specifically.

I am curious though as to why you would want the right to argue that the president deserves death? I mean as it stands now you are perfectly free to say almost anything but that. Must that be allowed to be said in order for you to feel that you have the freedom of dissent? Why would you want a revolution over that. You can call the Prez a tard, a pig, a dumbass, etc. I don't quite get why it's so bothersome to you that you aren't allowed to threaten his life, even jokingly.
 
Well that's all another debate entirely. I was merely answering the question from a, "Did this cop overstep his bounds as the law stands right now..." perspective.

Aye, and I believe he has.

I am curious though as to why you would want the right to argue that the president deserves death?

Treason. Treason is punished by death (hanging). If some President (and I'm not saying our current one specifically, it's a generalized thing) commits treason, I should be able to say he deserves to be hanged without consequence.
 
Says who? The government...they can piss off. They don't get to make the rules. We were built upon revolution, if we were ever to revolt again we would have to talk about offing politicians. I don't agree with the law because I can make fun of anyone else, I can joke about shooting a whole long list of people. Hell, I can make the comment halfway serious without getting arrested. The President isn't anything special, he's just a guy. There should be no special rules which apply to him. If I can say something about a guy, and I can say the same thing about the President.



Cops do not have rights. Well I mean, they have rights as individuals, they don't have rights as police officer. They have privilege and duty granted to them by the People, but there is nothing inherent in the job which gives them rights. Cops must have their power checked and minimized, especially when it comes to political dissent which must be one of the most highly valued and defended of all rights. There was no credible threat posed by the bumper sticker.



A bumper sticker is a bumper sticker, it can't do anything other than express an opinion. Expressing an opinion shouldn't get you in trouble in this country nor should it mean probable cause for the authority to come down on you.

Do you think that someone who is putting a sign on their car about abortion is joking? I've yet to see a pro-lifer talk about abortion in a humorous tone.

You can't threaten to kill any US citizen.
 
I notice a pattern with you. You're willing to squash the rights of the individual if it gets you what you want. So what? Is this not a debate board? Can I not state my opinion on the matter? Sounds more like you think I'm wrong and because if it I shouldn't get to talk. Sorry that all my arguments are based in the innate and inalienable rights of the individual and that you have a problem with it, but you can either discuss it or ignore it. These little digs are the only thing you've posted at me, and it's pointless little insult and nothing more.

And BTW, I didn't say it was unlimited. I said if I can say something about some guy, I can say the same thing about the President. That's it. Thanks for reading. kthanxbia.

I understand that it's a debate board. I guess, for me, I don't see debating as ignoring the other person's argument entirely. I think you can understand (which does not mean you agree with) another person's argument and still disagree with it. Based on the way you respond to very rational posts (like talloulou's), I get the impression as though you're standing there with your ears plugged and repeating your argument over and over again. To me, that's not debating. But this, of course, is just my opinion. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you--just making an observation.

Yeah, the president should be considered an ordinary citizen. Yeah. Okay. :roll:
 
"Credibly" is a subjective term.

Aye. Government likes subjective, gives them plenty of leeway. I try to go for more absolutes. I can't hire a hitman, that seems rather absolute. I can't actually plan a murder, I can't directly threaten people with deadly weapons, etc. But if I'm just sitting in a bar or something and am just like "Oh man...I'm gonna kill that Joe Bob!", not sure I just did anything wrong. I suppose it depends on other evidence to back it up. It's not the phrase itself but context and other actions along with it that would make it a credible offense or not. Still, the restrictions are on the State, not the individual. That's the side I prefer to stay on.
 
I personally think that the irony of someone who is pro-life having a bumper sticker like this is absolutely hilarious. It's like when a pro-life person killed Dr. David Gunn. You aren't exactly pro-life if you are calling for the death of another person.
 
Aye, and I believe he has.



Treason. Treason is punished by death (hanging). If some President (and I'm not saying our current one specifically, it's a generalized thing) commits treason, I should be able to say he deserves to be hanged without consequence.

Actually you might be right. If the guy had mailed this bumper sticker in a letter, sent it via email, posted it on line, etc then he'd be in violation

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) The terms "President-elect" and "Vice President-elect" as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase "other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President" as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.

but I wouldn't think a bumper sticker violated the spirit of this code no matter what it said. Is there another code that pertains to threats against the president which aren't mailed, transmitted online, emailed, etc? Maybe you are allowed to verbally say whatever you want as well as hang whatever the heck you want on your car. If this is the only code out there I change my mind. The bumper sticker was fine as it wasn't being mailed, transmitted, sent, etc in any fashion.
 
I don't see debating as ignoring the other person's argument entirely.

It's not ignoring. If I differ on the base reasons as to why someone thinks something is wrong, I may be able to understand the logic that got one there, but I can't agree with or accept it. When people make arguments against the rights of the individual, we are gonna fall into that lot. It's like a lot of your arguments, they tend to be against property or privacy rights and while I can say "ok, DUI may be bad" I can not accept any authoritative practice that addresses the issue while infringing upon the rights of the individual.

Here too. You can't threaten everyone, this is true. Freedom of speech has limits. If I have a bumper sticker that says "abort Jim Bob not babies", I'm not going to nor should I get in trouble for that. It's a stupid bumper sticker and there's nothing else to indicate it is a credible offense. The State has to find that it's credible, else I keep getting to do it. The restrictions are on the State, not the individual. Thus if I can do it to Jim Bob, I can do it do the President. Politicians further fall under more free license because they wield the power and soveriegnty of the People. Because of this, we have to be able to further talk out against them, it's important. Credible death threats...ok, maybe not on a daily basis. But political dissent, 100% must be upheld to its maximum. Regardless of the consequences because of it, there are a lot of dangers and responsibilities which come with freedom; I'd rather have that than the alternative.

Yeah, the president should be considered an ordinary citizen. Yeah. Okay. :roll:

More a servant than ordinary citizen. But in the end the President is just one human, one guy. Sure he's one guy with arguably the worst job in the country. But he's in power cause we said he could be. He can be replaced, it's not tough. Being President does not make him better than me, it doesn't give him more rights than me; it just means he has to deal with a lot more **** than me.
 
I personally think that the irony of someone who is pro-life having a bumper sticker like this is absolutely hilarious. It's like when a pro-life person killed Dr. David Gunn. You aren't exactly pro-life if you are calling for the death of another person.
Sometimes you have to kill someone to stop him from murdering hundreds or thousands of innocents. I don't see anything wrong with that.
 
Of course I am. You just don't understand what the term means. *shrug*

Pro-life means pro-life. Advocating the death of an abortion doctor, even if you don't agree with them and you feel that it saves lives (which it doesn't because he is dead now and SURPRISE SURPRISE!! abortion still exists) it doesn't excuse killing them. You can't be half-assed. You are either pro-life or you aren't.
 
Pro-life means pro-life. Advocating the death of an abortion doctor, even if you don't agree with them and you feel that it saves lives (which it doesn't because he is dead now and SURPRISE SURPRISE!! abortion still exists) it doesn't excuse killing them. You can't be half-assed. You are either pro-life or you aren't.

That's like saying prochoice means you must always be willing to allow people the choice to do whatever they want in any given situation. Clearly that's not what prochoice means.

Pro-choice and Pro-life stances in terms of abortion don't necessarily carry over to other issues. Someone who is pro-life when it comes to abortion need not be a buddhist monk vegetarian. Someone who's pro-choice doesn't have to believe in NEVER EVER restricting choice on other individuals. You wouldn't nasally whine to a prochoicer, "Why are you against a husband killing his wife - aren't you prochoice????"
 
That's like saying prochoice means you must always be willing to allow people the choice to do whatever they want in any given situation. Clearly that's not what prochoice means.

Pro-choice and Pro-life stances in terms of abortion don't necessarily carry over to other issues. Someone who is pro-life when it comes to abortion need not be a buddhist monk vegetarian. Someone who's pro-choice doesn't have to believe in NEVER EVER restricting choice on other individuals. You wouldn't nasally whine to a prochoicer, "Why are you against a husband killing his wife - aren't you prochoice????"

No, but in this particular context I think it's a bit hypocritical and ironic to be pro-life while advocating someone's death.
 
No, but in this particular context I think it's a bit hypocritical and ironic to be pro-life while advocating someone's death.

Pro-life and pro-choice are propaganda terms.
 
Pro-life and pro-choice are propaganda terms.

They may be propaganda terms, but a fair amount of pro-life and pro-choice people identify themselves as such.
 
They may be propaganda terms, but a fair amount of pro-life and pro-choice people identify themselves as such.

K, but talloulou already covered this. You can identify all you want. Pro-life isn't pro-all life, pro-choice isn't pro-all choice. They are propaganda terms used to push their views on this particular issue. But pro-choice sounds a hell of a lot better than pro-abortion choice. Pro-life sounds a hell of a lot better than pro-fetus life. That's the end all. It's propaganda for the sake of an argument.
 
K, but talloulou already covered this. You can identify all you want. Pro-life isn't pro-all life, pro-choice isn't pro-all choice. They are propaganda terms used to push their views on this particular issue. But pro-choice sounds a hell of a lot better than pro-abortion choice. Pro-life sounds a hell of a lot better than pro-fetus life. That's the end all. It's propaganda for the sake of an argument.

It doesn't change the irony that a person who identifies themselves as pro-life would have a bumper sticker that advocates someone's death. Obviously they are propaganda terms and nobody is truly pro-life or pro-choice across the board exists. I'm just saying that I personally find it humorous. I realize that nobody is truly pro-life or pro-choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom