political sign on private property

[PepperElf]

http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/Controversial-political-sign-raises-eyebrows-130727418.html

"He wouldn't do that to [President] Bush, I'm sure. It's just insulting. It's insulting," said C.C. Campbell-Rock. "He's going to have to take them down."

actually that's not true. there's been political demonstrations involving a bush statue with a noose around it's neck (http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/03/18/5_bush_hanging.jpg).

if it's not illegal to hang a bush statue like a lyching, why should it suddenly be illegal to have a private-property sign insulting obama?

Even a local council member is trying to find some way to legally force the sign down.
"Whatever we can use, we will, but of course, we do have to balance that with First Amendment rights."


I'm glad she remembered the 1A. Just because you personally dislike someone's political sign does not mean it has to come down.

and calling it "racist" as some have... doesn't actually mean it's about racism.


so far to me however it looks like people are going to try to invent reasons to force a political sign down because their :censored:s are hurt by seeing opposing political views.

[Andara Bledin]

While you can't pull the signs down based on their content as the First Amendment protects them, they can be pulled down for creating a public nuisance.

Just like too-fanciful displays for Halloween or Christmas have had to be banned, so, too, should too-fanciful political displays.

^-.-^

[Evandril]

Unless they prove a danger to public safety, I don't agree with any signs being pulled down, reguardless of content. Some signs I seriously dislike seeing, but the First Amendment doesn't say anything about liking what is said, just that you are free to say it. Do I like the sign? Nope...does that matter in the slightest? Only that I'd be more likely to keep a sign up I disagree with, because I'm aware of my bias, and would most likely err on the side of caution because of it...but I don't honestly see it making much difference.

[Andara Bledin]

The fact that police have had to be called to disperse onlookers gathered to protest can be used for it being a nuisance. The people fighting it are doing so on non-political grounds, however, and looking for ways to have them removed that are based on laws that have nothing to do with their content and everything to do with size/location/etc, so if the person who put them up did their homework and didn't violate any laws in so doing, they will stay.

^-.-^

[protege]

if it's not illegal to hang a bush statue like a lyching, why should it suddenly be illegal to have a private-property sign insulting obama?


I don't see how a couple of signs are worse than some of the Bush ones. I mean, people were protesting him from day 1 of his presidency. It wouldn't surprise me if the people complaining about the Obama signs...were the same people who were protesting Bush. I'll bet too, that they were the same ones against the whole "if you're not with me, you're against me" as well...and if you protest against *their* guy, you're automatically racist. Anyone else see the double standard here?

[Gravekeeper]

I don't see an opposing political viewpoint, I see an idiot with conspiracy theories and too much time on their hands. I can see them wanting it down not because of opposing politics, but because its embarrassing to the neighbourhood and causing a commotion.

But idiots have the right to free speech just like everyone else. I am kind of surprised at the size of that one sign though. I was thinking it would just be a little sign in their yard, but one of those is like a billboard. Lots of places have zone bylaws restricting the size/construction standard of things on your property. So he may end up having violated some of them with the big sign.

[blas87]

I agree with protege.

Part of the reason I don't have an anti-Obama bumper sticker (as much as I love some of the ones I've seen). I don't want some crazy ass vandalizing my car because I don't approve of the Hype Messiah, oops, president.

It was socially acceptable to rip on Bush. Hell, still blame him to this day for everything. But don't you dare say bad things about Obama.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't want some crazy ass vandalizing my car because I don't approve of the Hype Messiah, oops, president.


I find this amusingly ironic considering we're in a thread about a sign calling Obama the Anti-Christ.



It was socially acceptable to rip on Bush. Hell, still blame him to this day for everything. But don't you dare say bad things about Obama.

Bush's administration was a disaster and it will take years yet to undo the level of fundemental damage they did to America as a whole. Conversely, while I like Obama personally, he has been too weak on a lot of the things he set out to accomplish and his inability to grow a spine and put his foot down with the constant bullshit congress pulls is frustrating as all Hell and both he and congress are just hurting America by the gridlocked inaction its creating.

Obama's mistake is thinking American politicians A) Want to work together and B) Give a shit about the country. He's trying to negotiate with the storm instead of grabbing the wheel of the ship.

America needs a leader that will basically go "Fuck you guys, I'm going to fix this country whether you like it or not". -.-

Someone needs to campaign on that: "Fuck Ya'll. I Got This."

[protege]

Bush's administration was a disaster and it will take years yet to undo the level of fundemental damage they did to America as a whole.

That may be. However, after nearly 3 years in office, they're *his* problems now. He needs to find ways to solve them...instead of blaming Bush. Yes, I know that Bush tried to blame Clinton for things--not dealing with bin Laden, for example--and they basically said what I'm saying now. That he needs to "man up" and deal with things.

GK, I agree with you that politicians are only out for themselves. They'll do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. They really don't give a shit about the country, or even the people who put them in power. Unfortunately, to right that situation...we'd have to start over.

[Gravekeeper]

That may be. However, after nearly 3 years in office, they're *his* problems now. He needs to find ways to solve them...instead of blaming Bush.


You can't undo 8 years of damage in 3. No one could. Especially not with the opposing party fighting you every step of the way to stop you from fixing that damage. The 2008 election was basically a lose/lose situation for the US. Had you elected a Republican president, the same shit would have continued and made it worse. You elect a Democratic president and the other side fliilbusters everything he tries to do then blames him for not doing anything.

Conversely, the average citizen has no idea how politics or the economy works and will always blame the guy in office regardless of where the original problems began or whose doing what to propogate them. Obama would have to overturn an entire ingrained system of corruption to make any leeway, and he can't, because that system has all of the money and wants to keep having all of the money. When you couple that with a congress that would very much like to have all of the money too. You're banging your head against a wall.

Also, I highly doubt Obama sits around in the Oval Office going "Welp, this is Bush's fault, no point in me trying to solve them". =p

( Actually at this point he probably sits in the Oval Office just banging his head on the desk and mumbling "MOTHERFUCKERS" over and over >.> ).

[blas87]

Chuckling, "Suckers, hahahaha" is more like it.

[Gravekeeper]

Chuckling, "Suckers, hahahaha" is more like it.

No, that would be congress. If there's one thing I don't doubt about Obama, its that he actually gives a damn. Otherwise he wouldn't look like such a stressed out wreck and going grey so fast.

President of the US is a shitty, shitty job. Especially being the next president after Bush. I'm impressed anyone takes the job voluntarily. Let alone taking it knowing what a mess they'd be walking into after Bush.

For that matter, I don't doubt that Bush cared either.

You can't be president and not give a shit. The stress wouldn't be worth it. -.-

[MadMike]

and calling it "racist" as some have... doesn't actually mean it's about racism.


Agreed. Not agreeing with Obama doesn't necessarily make you racist. I'm sure there are some people out there who don't like him because he's not white, just as there are some who don't like him because he's not a republican, but I would hope that most people are smart enough to weigh his positives and negatives and decide logically. Then again, I'm probably giving the human race way too much credit.


Part of the reason I don't have an anti-Obama bumper sticker (as much as I love some of the ones I've seen). I don't want some crazy ass vandalizing my car because I don't approve of the Hype Messiah, oops, president.


I passed up a bumper sticker I really liked for a similar reason, although it wasn't a political one. I'm not sure if you're old enough to remember when eMpTyV had a rap show every day of the week called "Yo! MTV Raps!", while metal was given a shitty 12-3 a.m. Saturday night time slot before they stopped playing it all together, but I saw a sticker that said "Yo MTV! Kiss my white, hard-rocking ass!" I was afraid that if I put that on my car, I'd be accused of being a racist.


It was socially acceptable to rip on Bush.

Apparently you don't remember when daring to disagree with Bush would get you branded as a traitor or even a terrorist. I still remember the exact moment when I lost all faith and all respect for Bush. It was when he went on TV and announced, "You're either with us or with the terrorists!" I thought we had the freedom to disagree, to have an opposing opinion. I even remember, back before we had the rule against controversial topics on CS, someone calling another member a "Saddam-lover" when he expressed his disagreement with the Iraq war.

Bottom line: It's the guy's own private property, and for the most part, he can put up pretty much whatever sign he wants. I'm actually surprised the guy who had the Bush statue with the noose didn't get in trouble, because I can see that one being considered a threat. Not saying I agree with it, just saying that's how things happen sometimes.

I don't think that sign was really bad. Not like the guy in my area who came under fire for putting up huge anti-abortion signs with pictures of aborted fetuses on them. While I'm against abortion myself, I think that's just going way too far.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm actually surprised the guy who had the Bush statue with the noose didn't get in trouble, because I can see that one being considered a threat. Not saying I agree with it, just saying that's how things happen sometimes.


Me too, honestly. However, this is why the "But the other side did it!" argument doesn't work. Because lunatics are their own side and if you go far enough into the extreme of any political spectrum, you will find them. It's also where the "Both sides are bad" argument begins to fall apart too. The difference between left and right in the US, is that the right legtimized the lunatics and in doing so they created a monster that they're not sure how to get back into the box now.

And that monster is going to lose them the 2012 election, frankly.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

And that monster is going to lose them the 2012 election, frankly.

Unfortunately this isn't necessarily a rock solid prediction. The chances of a Republican winning next year are probably higher than you think.

[AdminAssistant]

It depends on which Republican runs, and who he chooses as VP. If Perry's on the ticket, no dice. However, a Romney/Cain ticket could be tougher to beat.

[Gravekeeper]

Unfortunately this isn't necessarily a rock solid prediction. The chances of a Republican winning next year are probably higher than you think.

Not unless there is a major change and soon. Right now they are hell bent on nominating the most unelectable candidate they can think of. Because its the monster steering the process. There are no good Republican candidates right now. Only 1 or 2 adequate ones and a bunch of lunatics. But lunatics aside, even the adequate ones are not going to attract moderates as they're still too far right. They also, overall, have dick for charisma outside of their own little camps.


It depends on which Republican runs, and who he chooses as VP. If Perry's on the ticket, no dice. However, a Romney/Cain ticket could be tougher to beat.

I don't think the US is not going to vote in a Mormon, honestly, even without issues with his political stances. Cainon the other hand doesn't have much hope in any liberal area and is on the wrong side of issues for many moderate areas ( pro-life, pro-war, anti-gay, anti-muslim, free market health care, privatized Medicare, etc ).

They both have issues and inconvenient politic stances that not only won't fly in a lot of areas, but will actively galvanize opposition. So I'm still not seeing a tough challenger out of the GOP camp. Plus they're all sitting around just shoveling out ammo to use against them in a general election with every debate they do. >.>

Also, strawpolls are meaningless, as is most polling this early. -.-

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I get where you're coming from, but the GOP plan is not "Hey let's find a kickass candidate to nominate so everyone will vote for us!"

It's "Hey, let's make Obama out to be as evil and scary and unAmerican as possible so no one will vote for HIM!"

That's what they are going to do, they are going to say "Hey look, we've had this black President for the past two years and the economy hasn't gotten any better and he's ruined healthcare and raised our taxes and may, in fact, be muslim and it'd be a real bad idea to elect him again."

The GOP will keep promising tax cuts and jobs. That's all (uninformed) voters really want to hear or care about.

[Gravekeeper]

I get where you're coming from, but the GOP plan is not "Hey let's find a kickass candidate to nominate so everyone will vote for us!"


But this is, ultimately, what I think will doom them. It's also why polling at this point is kind of silly. Once it becomes GOP Candidate VS Obama in a direct comparison, it won't be pretty. Campaign Obama is vastly more dangerous than Compromising President Obama. They can try and lay everything at Obama's feet, and he can turn around and lay everything on Congress's feet ( Whose approval rating is hilariously low ).

Even putting that aside, challenging Obama without a candidate of equal charisma is an uphill battle. Charisma, like it or not, means more to the American people then anything else. McCain didn't have an ounce of charisma. Neither did Kerry. There's certainly no one in the current GOP nominees with a shred of it.

You can point fingers and say how bad the other guy is all you want, but if you can't come up with a better idea yourself. You won't get too far. -.-

[AdminAssistant]

I can't wait for the first debate between Generic Republican and Obama. He will literally eat them for breakfast. I mean, could you imagine an Obama/Perry debate? You could put that shit on Pay-Per-View.

[HYHYBT]

For some reason, I just can't see a picture of Rick Perry without seeing Chuck Woolery. Which means that while half of me is thinking "please don't let this idiot become president," the other half is thinking "it's way past time for a revival of Scrabble! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8REYmrpWrs&feature=related) :)