Subliminal Messeges About Assassinating Donald Trump

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

"Right, do you know when you post crap like this you just make everyone who is anti-Trump look like morons"

So common sense equates to moronic these days? LoL

Thing is that's probobly on the nose OtherSideOfTheCoin.

What can i say, i simply call it how i see it.

I find it truly troubling that you think killing a sitting president equates to common sense....

I have no problem with calling it as you see it but honestly when I see posts like this it makes me empathise with the Trump supporters, you are forcing me to agree with them..

Think about that, your statements are so low that they are forcing me to agree with Trump supporters, thats a measure of how moronic your statement about killing Trump was.

I will state this again:

I didn't make this thread to be critical of one "side" or the other. If the President was a Democrat, I would feel the same way.

This thread is about whether the main stream media outlets that posts such pictures are going too far by showing such pictures. And...should they be held liable if some nut job tries to assassinate him based on a picture he saw.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Im well aware of what "in the crosshairs" pertains to in this instance. LoL

Trumps continued existence can only equate to other peoples misery, its a given really.

And as to your claim that "some might be more moved by words than pictures." well don't pictures paint a thousand words?

a reply to: MrBuddy

As much as I cannot stand him- yeah. That's about as blatant as you can get, and really is sending a message.

I do admit to spending more time than I should with that first pic, and thinking- What talent-less dipwit took such a piece of crap pic??? I can do better than that! (which, I can- really- but that ain't the topic.)

Now, as I avoid the white hot fires because he doesn't appeal to me one bit- I DO want to point out that all we are is stuck in someone's sweaty fantasy. The media on both sides are almost rabidly foaming at the mouth as they paint their vignettes, and both sides are going to drag as many as they can to 'their side'.

Seriously- if anyone doubts me- subscribe to news on both sides, and read both sides. ESPECIALLY around election time. *rolls eyes* You'd think that if we don't throw money at them, they will all die in the fires of hell, they will take puppies, kittens and orphans with them, and it'll all be YOUR FAULT! Throw away your party bias- or try to, and just read both sides with a critical eye- mostly at context, grammar (not grammar nazi- but how grammar is used), buzz words, and everything else.

Then, try to fact check a couple dozen, and see how many roads a man must walk down to simply get a truth. Betcha your head will explode before you ever find out the cold, hard truth- untarnished.

"He's going to get somebody in the media killed, MAYBE THAT WILL STOP HIM."

You can see the clip at the one minute mark:

a reply to: MrBuddy

This thread is about whether the main stream media outlets that posts such pictures are going too far by showing such pictures. And...should they be held liable if some nut job tries to assassinate him based on a picture he saw.

When has anyone been liable for a lunatic doing anything based off of a picture? Go on to Google and you can find an image of anything you want. Should we go on their and start charging anyone who puts up distasteful images?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Agreement or not is your own look out mate, Trumps better off dead, simple really.

The only moronic thing taking place is that people entertain the Mans gibberish. LoL

originally posted by: MrBuddy
I will state this again:

I didn't make this thread to be critical of one "side" or the other. If the President was a Democrat, I would feel the same way.

This thread is about whether the main stream media outlets that posts such pictures are going too far by showing such pictures. And...should they be held liable if some nut job tries to assassinate him based on a picture he saw.

So lets turn this on its head.

Should the media be aloud to publish pictures of the prophet Mohammad taking a turd.... pretty offensive just over 1 billion people on the planet.

OK.... should the media show pictures of carnage in the aftermath of a earthquake....some might feel a little queasy after that.

Ohhh what about those violent video games?

You get the point I am making, its about freedom of speech, freedom of the press. They are in no way liable if some moron walks out and tried to kill Trump because they were triggered by a picture they saw in the press.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MrBuddy
I will state this again:

I didn't make this thread to be critical of one "side" or the other. If the President was a Democrat, I would feel the same way.

This thread is about whether the main stream media outlets that posts such pictures are going too far by showing such pictures. And...should they be held liable if some nut job tries to assassinate him based on a picture he saw.

So lets turn this on its head.

Should the media be aloud to publish pictures of the prophet Mohammad taking a turd.... pretty offensive just over 1 billion people on the planet.

OK.... should the media show pictures of carnage in the aftermath of a earthquake....some might feel a little queasy after that.

Ohhh what about those violent video games?

You get the point I am making, its about freedom of speech, freedom of the press. They are in no way liable if some moron walks out and tried to kill Trump because they were triggered by a picture they saw in the press.

I think that putting the President of the United States in crosshairs of a weapon, insinuating violence against him or her, is on a far higher scale than showing pictures of things that have happened as an act of "God" or showing someone taking a dump.

These pictures aren't offensive in the same way. These pictures show a President in the crosshairs of a weapon...far different than your examples.

originally posted by: MrBuddy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MrBuddy
I will state this again:

I didn't make this thread to be critical of one "side" or the other. If the President was a Democrat, I would feel the same way.

This thread is about whether the main stream media outlets that posts such pictures are going too far by showing such pictures. And...should they be held liable if some nut job tries to assassinate him based on a picture he saw.

So lets turn this on its head.

Should the media be aloud to publish pictures of the prophet Mohammad taking a turd.... pretty offensive just over 1 billion people on the planet.

OK.... should the media show pictures of carnage in the aftermath of a earthquake....some might feel a little queasy after that.

Ohhh what about those violent video games?

You get the point I am making, its about freedom of speech, freedom of the press. They are in no way liable if some moron walks out and tried to kill Trump because they were triggered by a picture they saw in the press.

I think that putting the President of the United States, insinuating violence against him or her, is on a far higher scale than showing pictures of things that have happened as an act of "God" or showing someone taking a dump.

These pictures aren't offensive in the same way. These pictures show a President in the crosshairs of a weapon...far different than your examples.

Ahhh ok then so what you are saying is that its ok to show a picture of the God of over 1 billion people taking a turn when in their faith that is basically the highest of insults.....but.... you're not ok with showing picture of Trump with crosshairs over him?

hmmmm....

You might want to get a little bit more consistent with your arguments there buddy.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

"They are in no way liable if some moron walks out and tried to kill Trump because they were triggered by a picture they saw in the press."

Whats moronic about killing nonsensical tyrants?

Seems perfectly sensible to me no matter the trigger, picture or words. Lets just say the ends would indeed justify the means where that bastard is concerned.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: MrBuddy

This thread is about whether the main stream media outlets that posts such pictures are going too far by showing such pictures. And...should they be held liable if some nut job tries to assassinate him based on a picture he saw.

When has anyone been liable for a lunatic doing anything based off of a picture? Go on to Google and you can find an image of anything you want. Should we go on their and start charging anyone who puts up distasteful images?

Never once that I can find, but in todays PC culture when people are whining about everything and getting their way, you never know. There's a recent thread here about how some girl was claiming sexism on a Cocoa Puffs box and got them to change the wording. I'm not saying that it WOULD happen...only that it seems possible in todays climate.

a reply to: MrBuddy

I'm not saying that it COULD happen...only that it seems possible in todays climate.

Well theres a oxymoron for ya'll!

One word;

Metaphorics.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MrBuddy

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MrBuddy
I will state this again:

I didn't make this thread to be critical of one "side" or the other. If the President was a Democrat, I would feel the same way.

This thread is about whether the main stream media outlets that posts such pictures are going too far by showing such pictures. And...should they be held liable if some nut job tries to assassinate him based on a picture he saw.

So lets turn this on its head.

Should the media be aloud to publish pictures of the prophet Mohammad taking a turd.... pretty offensive just over 1 billion people on the planet.

OK.... should the media show pictures of carnage in the aftermath of a earthquake....some might feel a little queasy after that.

Ohhh what about those violent video games?

You get the point I am making, its about freedom of speech, freedom of the press. They are in no way liable if some moron walks out and tried to kill Trump because they were triggered by a picture they saw in the press.

I think that putting the President of the United States, insinuating violence against him or her, is on a far higher scale than showing pictures of things that have happened as an act of "God" or showing someone taking a dump.

These pictures aren't offensive in the same way. These pictures show a President in the crosshairs of a weapon...far different than your examples.

Ahhh ok then so what you are saying is that its ok to show a picture of the God of over 1 billion people taking a turn when in their faith that is basically the highest of insults.....but.... you're not ok with showing picture of Trump with crosshairs over him?

hmmmm....

You might want to get a little bit more consistent with your arguments there buddy.

I'm not saying that at all. I've seen all kinds of pictures of Presidents being shown all types of ways I don't agree with. Trump is a mainstay on SNL. While in bad taste...or sometimes even funny, they are completely different than insinuating VIOLENCE.
I'd like to add that the pictures of Mohammad did lead to all kinds of violence and remember....the Democrats claim that a video about Mohammad caused Bengazi as well. So if a picture of him taking a dump caused violence, why then are you okay with a picture of a head of State in the crosshairs of a weapon??
For the record, I don't agree with defaming anyones GOD...but THIS thread is not about Mohammad...it's about main stream media.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MrBuddy

I'm not saying that it COULD happen...only that it seems possible in todays climate.

Well theres a oxymoron for ya'll!

Yeah...I had to edit that one.

a reply to: MrBuddy

The problem though with that is that its not inciting violence.

Its a very common metaphoric phrase, under the crosshairs, meaning under intense scrutiny, often accompanied by a picture of said individual under the crosshairs as a visual metaphor. It is in no way intended to or implying any kind of violence.

I get the feeling we might have to agree to disagree on this one....

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Im well aware of what "in the crosshairs" pertains to in this instance. LoL

Trumps continued existence can only equate to other peoples misery, its a given really.

And as to your claim that "some might be more moved by words than pictures." well don't pictures paint a thousand words?

The continued existence of this ideology can only equate to others peoples misery, it's a given reality.

Whatever mentality it takes to justify "the ends justifies the means", is the mentality responsible for every form of genocide the world has ever known.

Your opinion disgusts me and the insanity from the left that incites this type of ideology is why so many people will show up to vote red. We simply can't let people with your mentality gain control of our government again.

a reply to: Isurrender73

"The continued existence of this ideology can only equate to others peoples misery, it's a given reality."

Say what now?

The POTUS disgusts the rest of the civilised world.

"Whatever mentality it takes to justify "the ends justifies the means", is the mentality responsible for every form of genocide the world has ever known."

I beg to disagree as to " every form of genocide".

"Your opinion disgusts me and the insanity from the left that incites this type of ideology os why so many people will show up to vote red. We simply can't let people with your mentality gain control of our government again."

No problem there as im on the other side of the pond. LoL

The rest of the civilised world simply cannot let Trump take America down the road she is headed and if it takes a bullet to the brain to illustrate that point so be it really no matter where it comes from.

Your president gathers far more disgusts that i could ever hope to accumulate, just a thought.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: MrBuddy

The problem though with that is that its not inciting violence.

Its a very common metaphoric phrase, under the crosshairs, meaning under intense scrutiny, often accompanied by a picture of said individual under the crosshairs as a visual metaphor. It is in no way intended to or implying any kind of violence.

I get the feeling we might have to agree to disagree on this one....

We seem to be comparing two different things. I'm not referring to someone merely stating the term "in the crosshairs", this thread is about showing the actual picture of someone literally shown in the crosshairs.

My opinion is that seeing it elicits a far different responses than reading the same thing. It'd be like someone telling you they seen this amazing UFO. You'll listen to them, but not really care too much about the words. If that same person showed you a picture of the event, you'd care a lot more and more and it would certainly make you take more notice.