It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suspect detained over 'extremist' bumper sticker

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by fooffstarr
For all those wanting to support this man:

....

Since when did freedom of speech and opinion become illegal? Since Bush and the new Messiah said so? I don't think so.

Proudly show that you will not be subverted by your 'elected' leaders. The cops want to stop people showing this flag? Spread it everywhere.


Just to correct you on one measure however, President Bush never trampled upon our Freedom of Speech. The only issue which someone might declare in POTUS Bush's term which affected Free Speech, most likely pertains to the "Patriot Act". However, the "Patriot Act" was essentially an emergency legislation passed in leu of 9-11, and over time it is being modified accordingly. STILL, the Patriot Act never affected anyone that I know, and I have known some truly Leftist, Anti-Bush individuals.

I have never noticed such a level of viciousness and oppression aimed towards critics of an Executive Administration, as I have now. POTUS Bush could laugh off insults, and many of his supporters simply ignored the ranting; whereas POTUS Obama (even to the admission of insiders) is vindictive, and many of his supporters resemble lynch mobs. During the Campaign Season, you could barely criticize anything about Obama, without being labelled a Racist, Redneck, or Repugnant. Even now, with his elected Power, he still feels the need to address and attack ANY criticism of himself, whether it be from a Talk Radio Host, or a Journalist. There is definitely a new level of childish pettiness present in this current Administration, and if we do not keep it in check, it will only get worse.


I guess you could possibly make a case that bush didn't directly curtail freedom of speech.....na not really.
How many people actually were worried that he would try and declare martial law to stay in power? Quite a lot so people kept quiet hoping that he wouldn't have an excuse to try a power play. That most definitely curtailed freedom of speech. Oh and then there were those FREE SPEECH zones that were set up.
And if you didn't move to the illegally designated free speech zone, you were arrested for practicing your freedom of speech.

Although bush wasn't known for his freedom of speech violations, he did commit them.
The patriot act was more for invasion of privacy via ILLEGAL wiretapping.




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SIEGE
Warned by a police officer ?

Was the "Don't Tread On Me" sticker right beside the other bumper sticker
that said "Fight Swine Flu : Kill All Pigs ! " ?


Wow now that would be a ballsy move with a bumper sticker
like that. Pretty sure that would get a little negative attention.
Try making it and putting it on the car on the way to a tea party.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
TextText Blue
So I Go into An Armory on a STATE UNIV property that houses ROTC & National Guard, And as you walk in there's a wall of Heroes and across from the wall is a picture frame with a "Don't Tread on Me Flag". These are Vets and new Recruits, And Among them are Police Officers. ALL of Them Just want what's best for Our Country. I haven't had a chance to talk to any of them about this but I may have to.
I don't put stickers on my car cuz I know that It would draw attention. though I am More and More prepared. I hope I stayed on the good side of the Right people. I don't think its wise that they're starting to mess with these soldiers that have gone thru so much. I can't see them sitting back and just taking it. the powers that be are alienating more and more people, more of us than them, how really intelligent are they?



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 





The whole point is that if I want to put a Don't Tread on Me bumper sticker on my car, the CONSTITUTION guarantees that I can.

or how about this one?
"Those who would relinquish liberty to gain security, deserve neither and will soon lose both." -Benjamin Franklin-

This is considered extremist too yet the government puts his face on money


I do not disagree with anything you have to say my friend.

Yet I think we can both say that for all intents and purposes the Constitution is either dead or being almost completely surpressed.

My problem with this example of this man and his bumper sticker is he did give up his liberties.

"Oh you pulled me over for my bumper sticker, wow! sorry Officer, this is America and you just violated my rights, have a nice day...I got to go, shoot me in the back but I am not staying".

The man gave up his liberties to the officer in order not to be shot or arrested...he gave them up for security.

This nation is not just under seige my friend. This nation is under occupation. This nation is under occupation by a non-Constitutional Government and it's non-Constitutional Authorities as evidenced by that Police Officer's Actions.

When the leading Patriots had to go into British Occupied New York City, they did so in secrecy with stealth because they knew their ideals of Liberty and Freedom were under attack and men and women who were promoting them individually, and vocally, and publicly were under attack too. They hid the fact that they were Patriots and Rebels in such circumstances so as not to be detained and identified so that they could live freely to fight another day.

Laws like our Constitution have always been written in Black and White.

People always live though in the gray areas in between, in a gray area that when those actions of a mixed hue don't always pan out they both decree and lament what is written in Black and White.

"Crying won't help you, praying won't do you no good."

Franklin was not crying or praying, Franklin was putting his life and liberties on the line to create principals to put down in Black and White, and he did it like we all did it, in a fluid and quite gray often foggy area of life, in a way, with great forethought and intelligence that would enable him to come out the other side alive, quite well, splendidly famous and a hero for his efforts.

My contention is simply this, what good is exercising free speech if you don't mean what you are saying.

The man freely said, don't tread on me, an then meekly allowed himself to be tread upon. That's my exception. He made no attempt to personally stop being tread upon whilst being tread upon. He did not mean what he said.

I watched a video recently of a man at a internatl Border Control check point that did not allow himself to be tread upon. He wouldn't roll down is window, he wouldn't let Officers touch his car, he refused to engage them in any kind of "friendly" small talk, he kept telling them over and over again what ever they tried to tell him to do that he would not abandon his constitutional rights and that they were violating them and kept demanding to know why, until after nearly 35 minutes of sitting in his car, refusing to roll down his window, pull his car over to a search area, display his drivers license, tell them where he was going or what he was doing for a living all the while saying no you have no right to ask for or know or do any of those things...they finally waved him through with out the man once sacrificing his principals, with the man fighting non-violently the whole time for his liberties and never giving up or in...that's what Ben Franklin was talking about and this silly man did not do that.

Ben Franklin meant what he said, the man stopped at the Internal Border Inspection Station meant what he said. This man in this story didn't mean what he said, he wouldn't fight for it non-violently or otherwise, he didn't mean don't tread on me because he let himself be tread upon.

Was he a victim of a corrupt, increasingly tyranical non-constitutional government and it's police state apparatus? He sure was!

Was he a hero that defended his rights and fought for them and secured them on the spot as all of our Forefathers warned us we would likely have to do one day to keep them? No he sure didn't he chose to be a victim and a looser and not a hero, because his strength of conviction did not match what he freely felt he had a right to say, and should have a right to say, but did not mean as evidenced by his subsequent reactions.

Say what you mean and mean what you say is my motto.

He didn't mean what he said. That only emblodens those who want to take free speech and rights away. As my dear old dearly departed Grandmother was oft fond of saying "Its better to keep your mouth shut and think like a fool than open it and display it" Had the man's actions equalled his words I would have considered him a hero and someone reminding the Government they can't win this unconstitutional war, a true asset, someone fighting truly for a better day. He didn't mean what he said and acted in a complete opposite fashion of what he said.

I think that is foolish. I in no way advocate the abandonment of free speech.

I in every way advocate say what you mean and mean what you say by proving it with deeds not hollow and empty words...

And if you really think about what I am saying, it is just what Ben would have said...who by the way if you ever read the Treaty of Paris signed after the Revolutionary War you will see that at the Court of Versaislles that Ben Franklin as were our other two delagates to the conference, were stripped of their titles gained through the rebellious government and made instead officers of the Court of Versailles an official court of the Holy Roman Empire and accepted the King of England a Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, not only naming the United States of America, but in so doing creating the United States of America and electing it in to the Holy Roman Empire and dictating the terms of how it would be structured and what had to be written into it's constitution to legally function. In reality when England, France, the Netherlands and Spain all members of the Holy Roman Empire showed Ben and his two friends all the contracts, bills, and creditors their birthing of a nation left broken, owed and angry, and what those consequences would be of that action, Ben not only got tread upon but rolled over, sold out, and treaded on us, with a meaningless Constitution that guaranteed all of our creditors to those corporate entities who were and still are the Holy Roman Empire, but did not in fact Gaurantee this man at his traffic stop anything but hollow words that even to him as he was victimized meant nothing. The corporations ran the world in 1776, Bankers and Creditors and Lawyers, just like they rule it now. McDonalds claims to make the best hamburger, Wendy's counters that claim, personally I think I make the best Hamburger but all this man was making and serving was chopped liver!

For the record while Ben was saying "Early to Bed, Early to Rise, Makes a Man Healthy Wealthy and Wise" He was putting all his inside information to work for him by staying up to the wee hours of the morning every night enjoying the Parisian nightlife capitalizing on the deals he made at Versailles while selling out those who like to imagine they can't be tread upon.

Me personally my right to free speech makes me say what I do mean, I don't want to hear it, I want to see it!

Thanks



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I do not disagree with anything you have to say my friend.

Yet I think we can both say that for all intents and purposes the Constitution is either dead or being almost completely surpressed.

There are most definitely violations but I don't think it's by any means dead. If it were, we'd be living under martial law and nobody would have any rights. The problem is that our rights are being picked apart and we need to make sure that stops so we don't lose them entirely.


My problem with this example of this man and his bumper sticker is he did give up his liberties.

Not to be picky but he didn't give up his liberty, it was illegally taken. This is of course assuming that the story is as black and white as it is portrayed on this thread.


"Oh you pulled me over for my bumper sticker, wow! sorry Officer, this is America and you just violated my rights, have a nice day...I got to go, shoot me in the back but I am not staying".

Again, we're assuming we know everything that went on. I'm going to see if I can find a bit more info about this incident.


The man gave up his liberties to the officer in order not to be shot or arrested...he gave them up for security.

He didn't give up his rights for security. His rights were taken because the cop had a gun.
If the cop said, I'm pulling you over because you have this bumper sticker on your car and arresting you for it, this is a clear violation.


This nation is not just under seige my friend. This nation is under occupation. This nation is under occupation by a non-Constitutional Government and it's non-Constitutional Authorities as evidenced by that Police Officer's Actions.

And many people are raining in these rogue cops using something very simple-the legal system.


When the leading Patriots had to go into British Occupied New York City, they did so in secrecy with stealth because they knew their ideals of Liberty and Freedom were under attack and men and women who were promoting them individually, and vocally, and publicly were under attack too. They hid the fact that they were Patriots and Rebels in such circumstances so as not to be detained and identified so that they could live freely to fight another day.

We can make this very simple. There are approximately 230 million Americans in the US. There are approx. 250 million vehicles in the US. If every citizen put that bumper sticker on their vehicle, it would completely take away all their power with this particular situation.


My contention is simply this, what good is exercising free speech if you don't mean what you are saying.

Well the don't tread on me bumper sticker in it's most basic form simply means that "I won't be taken advantage of". I'm sure most people mean it when they say that.


The man freely said, don't tread on me, an then meekly allowed himself to be tread upon. That's my exception. He made no attempt to personally stop being tread upon whilst being tread upon. He did not mean what he said.

So are you actually suggesting he should have killed the officer to prove a point?
What did you honestly expect him to do which would satisfy your interpretation of the bumper sticker?


I watched a video recently of a man at a internatl Border Control check point that did not allow himself to be tread upon. He wouldn't roll down is window, he wouldn't let Officers touch his car, he refused to engage them in any kind of "friendly" small talk, he kept telling them over and over again what ever they tried to tell him to do that he would not abandon his constitutional rights and that they were violating them and kept demanding to know why, until after nearly 35 minutes of sitting in his car, refusing to roll down his window, pull his car over to a search area, display his drivers license, tell them where he was going or what he was doing for a living all the while saying no you have no right to ask for or know or do any of those things...they finally waved him through with out the man once sacrificing his principals, with the man fighting non-violently the whole time for his liberties and never giving up or in...that's what Ben Franklin was talking about and this silly man did not do that.

Did you know at one point, he was taken out of his car and beaten???

An Arizona
pastor – Tasered, bloodied by broken glass and sporting 11 stitches in his head – claims his injuries came from being stopped at a Border Patrol checkpoint 75 miles inside the U.S. and then being battered by police for refusing to allow agents to search his vehicle.

www.worldnetdaily.com...


So did he give up his rights too then?



Ben Franklin meant what he said, the man stopped at the Internal Border Inspection Station meant what he said. This man in this story didn't mean what he said, he wouldn't fight for it non-violently or otherwise, he didn't mean don't tread on me because he let himself be tread upon.

Is he suing the cop? The police dept? The city? etc..
Do we know yet if he is going to fight for his rights non-violently ?


Say what you mean and mean what you say is my motto.

He didn't mean what he said. That only emblodens those who want to take free speech and rights away.

Again, you're making your assumptions based on your interpretation of the bumper sticker.


[edit on 9-5-2009 by jfj123]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by L.HAMILTON


The Department of Homeland Security is compiling a list of what they consider as 'threats'. They are targeting returning veterans, animal rights organisations , supporters of presidential candidates such as Ron Paul , photographing people at tax (tea party) demonstrations.Facism is slowly becoming a reality in this country right under our very nose.

www.worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Slowly? It is spreading faster then the Swine Flu and is five times more deadly.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
In the following article of the Oath Keepers mentions how the DHS's statements of returning Afghanistan and Iraq veterans as potential terrorists is ticking both active and veterans off, a must read ....www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com... A tribute to the Oath-Keepers



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by L.HAMILTON
In the following article of the Oath Keepers mentions how the DHS's statements of returning Afghanistan and Iraq veterans as potential terrorists is ticking both active and veterans off, a must read ....www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com... A tribute to the Oath-Keepers


Thank you for the video.

Every American should taking those oaths and standing firm to uphold our Constitution. Every American should be defending our country from the corrupt actions of our government.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Are you serious? Abort Obama is not a threat. We supposedly have the first amendment, but I guess its just toilet paper. You know, I really think that if our rights continue to plummet we need to secede.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 





There are most definitely violations but I don't think it's by any means dead. If it were, we'd be living under martial law and nobody would have any rights. The problem is that our rights are being picked apart and we need to make sure that stops so we don't lose them entirely.


Well, considering the Government will use it to its own advantage against the people when convenient and possible, the no it’s not strictly dead, but simply being armed with the constitution seems to have little prohibitive or protectoral value at the whole important moment when Governmental abuses of the Constitution do the citizen the most damage.

Some recourse and redress might later be available provided you possess the means and ability to pay the cost in money and time as a plaintiff who must bear the expense of proving their case. That does severely diminish it’s protections for a fair number of people even in its so called reactionary protections.




Not to be picky but he didn't give up his liberty, it was illegally taken. This is of course assuming that the story is as black and white as it is portrayed on this thread.


Tomato, tamoto, potato, patato, given, taken, half full, half empty, I like the fact that Government does these things perhaps even less than you my friend. We all have to bear some personal responsibility for what goes badly in our lives regardless or we risk the very dependency of absolute faith in a potentially fallible system being used against us.
I first and foremost bear a responsibility unto myself, and consider my own self to be the very best guarantor and protector of my inherent inalienable right to be an incredibly annoying obstructionist to any process visited by any quarter that might impede or impinge upon my desire to move, travel or withdraw at my very own liberty.

You truly do not need permission to exercise your inherent and constitutional rights; you just bear the responsibility and consequence.

The police can either be punished later for their offence as one solution.

Or I can be vindicated or acquitted later for my exercise of my inalienable rights. Only you can take away your inalienable rights. They only become inalienable when you won’t surrender them. Whether or not someone had no right to impinge upon them is mute you see my friend because you allowed yourself to be so tricked in to surrendering your inalienable rights. Ultimately you are the one that has to alienate them.




He didn't give up his rights for security. His rights were taken because the cop had a gun.

If the cop said, I'm pulling you over because you have this bumper sticker on your car and arresting you for it, this is a clear violation.


Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, shall we live and let live or live and let die?
That is your inalienable right to make that decision, that’s what the Constitution guarantees you, if you play your hand right, don’t submit, don’t die in the process well you get to live another day with your rights in tact. If you play your hand wrong and you die…it was your hand, you died exercising your inalienable rights the noblest kind of death a person could die. That is your inalienable right when anyone attempts to violate them for what ever person. To freely and willingly at that moment deny them that attempt in what ever prudent manner best does. This is not a criminal action it is merely a confrontational action when you seek to exercise your inalienable rights. You only risk the weight of the immediate circumstances not the weight of the law later which must rule on your side if you elected to exercise your inalienable rights. Only you can surrender them and they can’t punish you for not surrendering them when the attempt to make you was unconstitutional. It’s just like in a hurricane or other natural disaster, you are on your own until help might arrive, you and you alone must bear the ultimate responsibility to do that and you and you alone are the only one who can abdicate that constitutional right under natural law.

Getting people to understand this is the whole secret to what makes a right inalienable is hard. They always want some guarantee impossible in natures law, and they always want someone else to intercede and bear the responsibility for what they will not, their own inalienable rights.

My true security comes in knowing I don’t ever have to do that as long as I am willing to live and let die. I would rather die on my feet staring death in the face than on my knees and I have told a gunman or two with one loaded and aimed at me to his face in my day yet here I freely sit to freely speak!




And many people are raining in these rogue cops using something very simple-the legal system.


It is not illegal to not comply with an illegal order. They were pretty clear about that at Nuremburg. In fact it was illegal to comply with an illegal order from Officers. Guess what that police man who stopped you is an Officer. Following illegal orders is illegal to those who exercise their inalienable rights, what is legal is rejecting them, and they must vindicate you in any court of law for any erroneous charge that stems from your right to exercise your inalienable rights under natures law which are only inalienable if you never surrender them regardless the circumstance. So simple and I am sorry someone might not what the responsibility, they have an inalienable right to be a slave and submissive if that is how they choose to exercise it. Why must we clog up the courts with what truly only amounts to the confusion on the part of someone who is inclined to lean towards submission and slavery? Having inalienable rights is a responsibility you be responsible for them.




We can make this very simple. There are approximately 230 million Americans in the US. There are approx. 250 million vehicles in the US. If every citizen put that bumper sticker on their vehicle, it would completely take away all their power with this particular situation.


I have an inalienable right to not display tacky bumper stickers that even while advertising good old American History are likely stamped somewhere in fine print Made in China.

It gets real simple when people take responsibility for their own inalienable rights and never abdicate them for any reason, which keeps them inalienable in perpetuity and the only thing that does and that is what Ben Franklin was saying.





Well the don't tread on me bumper sticker in it's most basic form simply means that "I won't be taken advantage of". I'm sure most people mean it when they say that.


If the person is pretty enough, kinky enough, and fun enough to be around…shhh… I will let them take advantage of me. It’s still cheaper than getting married!

The reality is that I am the one that has to let them take advantage of me, which is my inalienable right to do so when they are kinky enough, pretty enough and fun enough, and I have got to be honest I have even found some Deputy Directors of the FBI who fit all those criteria and would even loan me their handcuffs if asked for the kinky enough part.

Most officers of the law have real Sado/masochistic tendencies and deep seeded psychological insecurities and I have an inalienable right to indulge and manipulate those. I have an inalienable right to enjoy confrontational situations of all kinds and seek to win any gain I choose at any time during the confrontational process. I have that right, that inalienable right and no one but me can take that away.




So are you actually suggesting he should have killed the officer to prove a point?


Wow! That’s pretty drastic but I suppose if you’re in a big hurry? What could be more fun though than confusing, annoying, perplexing, and manipulating an errant officer of the law, when you forget the gun and the uniform and badge are there and engage them on a human to human level where all men are created equal which once again is your inalienable right, you have a right to down right skillfully humiliate him for his offence. You have the right to just withdraw and attempt to flee that’s your inalienable right under natural law, and they have no right to use deadly force to thwart that but just to see if they can naturally catch up with you and impede your passage through some form of restraint in their natural reaction which is their inalienable right to do anything they want as a human being too even though it is a violation of the constitution. They get the penalty infraction for that not you.




[edit on 10/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

[edit on 10/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

[edit on 10/5/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 





Did you know at one point, he was taken out of his car and beaten???


Good for him, that’s a good man there! He exercised his inalienable rights; I have caught some beatings by agents of the Government for exercising mine. That’s my inalienable right to annoy and defy them that bad! They can beat me all they want and fall into that trap! Ouch, it hurts, but hey the body is an incredible self healing machine that usually heals faster than a wounded ego or remorseful mind. I am pretty sure this man’s conscience is not hurting him. Practicing one’s inalienable rights can be painful and usually in cases like this right after they finish beating you they get a doctor or nurse to look at you that will say and write down and sign that you don’t have a mark on you. Then the crafty little cretins look at you and say “So you see, if you go to the press, and/or file a lawsuit it’s going to be hard to refute this, and our own report is going to state you have such a confrontational, uncooperative, and obnoxious personality that you are the type of person that would cause a civilian in the natural course of your travels cause to want to violently beat you” That’s there inalienable right to do too under natures law as human beings, yes it’s a flag on the play constitutionally and you have a right to seek redress through it at your time and expense which is another one of your inalienable right. Use them however you want to, you do have them, it’s all your choice, and your responsibility and once again that’s what old Benjie boy was saying. Life can be painful at times and it’s your inalienable right to endure pain in the pursuit of your liberties.




Is he suing the cop? The police dept? The city? etc..
Do we know yet if he is going to fight for his rights non-violently ?



I suppose better late than never. It’s his inalienable right to do so if he wants to or not too if he doesn’t. When you really know and understand what inalienable is, he in fact exercised them all the way. He chose to be submissive, he opted for slavery.

No good Roman does that! We were lucky you know at the Treaty of Ghent concluding the War of 1812, we opted out of the Holy Roman Empire and into the Roman Empire itself. Not a bad move we don’t have to all die in the Biblical conquest plan of the world we hatched 1700 years ago. It’s not all bleak friend.

Good free thinking Roman Citizens of the Empire always stand their ground and take a beating if they must for it. That is and what has always been, and the only thing that truly earns one the respect and distinction of freedom in this Empire.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Grafilthy
WORLD. NET. DAILY.

Might as well be the Weekly World News.

Quick look! Those cops are persecuting Batboy!!


I am pretty new here, and I don't feel comfortable starting a thread yet, but is there a list of "Unreputable" sources somewhere already? I know that is a relative term, and yes CNN, FOX, NBC can be thrown in that bunch, but what I am looking for are the several internet sources I see ATS people attacking regularly.

I would like to know what to look for as I am reading, and so I am not naive enough to list one later unless I have verified it elsewhere.

Thanks in advance.


If it goes against your ideology or perceived wisdom, consider it a moon/wing bat crackpot biased site. It probably is a NWO front by the reptilians if it doesn't agree with you. That's how we do it in these parts, Ufologists have been attacking each other as disinfo for decades if someone doesn't agree.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by fooffstarr
For all those wanting to support this man:

Since when did freedom of speech and opinion become illegal? Since Bush and the new Messiah said so? I don't think so.

Proudly show that you will not be subverted by your 'elected' leaders. The cops want to stop people showing this flag? Spread it everywhere.


Just to correct you on one measure however, President Bush never trampled upon our Freedom of Speech. The only issue which someone might declare in POTUS Bush's term which affected Free Speech, most likely pertains to the "Patriot Act". However, the "Patriot Act" was essentially an emergency legislation passed in leu of 9-11, and over time it is being modified accordingly. STILL, the Patriot Act never affected anyone that I know, and I have known some truly Leftist, Anti-Bush individuals.


I would consider free speech zones a pretty serious attack on the spirit of free speech, although free speech was still allowed, if it's only allowed when and where the dictator decrees, that's not very free. Free speech zones were around before, but Bush was probably the largest user of them



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
what needs to be done is a couple thousand people show up at home land security buildings and throw them all in jail for terrorism


then we can all go back to being normal and chillin the hell out


the only danger to america is those jerks

im telling you, since the law enforcement wont help us, screw em

time for a citizens arrest...and if a couple thousand show up to make the arrest, someones gotta listen



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


obama is pro choice. the bumper sticker obviously has a pro life opinion. when was the last time you heard anyone use the term abort to kill anyone?? the pig was an even bigger idiot than the religious idiot he pulled over


the US army just aborted 200 iraqis last month

the bloods just aborted at least 5 crips last night on MLK boulevard

Your objective is to find the president, and abort him!


Dont play devils advocate just for the hell of it



posted on May, 11 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by L.HAMILTON
 

I would never put anything political on my car, simply because a cop can pull you over for practically any reason (or make one up after the fact), so why give him an excuse to look for a reason to stop you.

"Driving while Black" and "Driving while Conservative" and "Driving while Liberal" are all wrong reasons for stopping someone, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
First of all, it's our freedom of speech to express our political views. Second of all, you can't break into someone's house without a search warrant.

Based on the Napolitano terrorist report it is clear that they are stopping everyone who shows the slightest sign of being a rightwing extremist. The report also makes it clear that everyone on this website belong to that group.

Napolitano's justification will be that they need to do their utmost to avoid any local terrorist attacks, so therefore it is important to stop anyone who shows even the slightest sign that they belong to one of these terrorist groups, which explains why bumper sticker lovers are being stopped frequently now.

Napolitano's second defense of the report will be that the report clearly only focuses on those who use violent manners to express their animosity towards the government. These people just happen to be influenced by all the different points mentioned in the report.

I'm glad to see that she does blame the government's decison making on extremists' actions though.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join