Oklahoma City police officer pulls man over for anti-Obama sign on vehicle

[Peikko 1,575]

Shooter, I think you just went over the line of acceptable insults.

Why you did that is beyond me too, you had some interesting points and then you blow it with that diatribe against someone you don't even know anything about. You are such a weird guy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Calling someone a fascist wife-beater. It does seem a bit much.

[Danno 1,228]

Likening a black person to an ape or monkey is a well known racist stereotype - a bit of of not ###### sherlock there I think.

Even if that's not the intended meaning it doesn't change the underlying implication - hence the response to that chimp cartoon the other day.

There's no established racial subtext in likening a white guy to an ape. If we're arguing double standards perhaps we should be asking why the stereotype is indelibly associated with blacks and not whites.

So you are saying any ;well known racial stereotype is off limits?

That would be a long list I would think .....and quite handy.

Perhaps we should document what this OFF-LIMITS list might be so no one crosses the line in being critical in words or cartoon.

Can you name some others PD?

I would imagine its common sense Danno - if you're so outraged by the idea that a stereotype applied in one context has indelible racist meanings associated with it then perhaps we should wonder why our "white dude" ancestors created those meanings to begin with.

The idea that some double standard exists because a racial subtext is involved in comparing a black man to an ape that doesn't come into play when applied to a white man - is moronic. The "real" double standard is that the disparity of meaning exists to begin with.

Thanks for the long winded reply but I would have preferred if you had got our list of Racial stereotypes which are prohibited.

Here let me help you PD.

No jokes, cartoons or associations between Obama and any white woman.

-this clearly plays into the old Black guys lust after white woman.

No suggestion may be made that Obama is financially irresponsible.

- this plays off the racist stereotype of Blacks being "N_GGER RICH"

No one can make note of Obama on vacation when there is work to be done.

- This is playing off the old stereotype that Blacks are lazy.

No one can make note of Obamas Dancing, basketball or any other such ability as this

- is only meant to further the stereotype that Blacks are more gifted physically.

It's prohibited to mention "certain" food items associated at any occasion of the President.

- these include but not limited too, Chicken, Watermelon, fatback, collards.

It's forbidden to portray (even in joke) obama as stupid or dumb.

- This clearly plays into the old racial stereotypes of Blacks being low IQ.

No one may suggest the President is a liar,untrustworthy or not dependable.

- these clearly are associated with the Old racist stereotypes.

NO mention of the President loosing his temper and lashing out at anyone.

- this only furthers the stereotype of ANGRY BLACKMAN out of control.

No mention of this list shall be made in public

- this just reinforces the stereotype; Black guy is insulated from the same attacks and criticism as whites.

PD, you seem to be an expert in these things, please add some that to mind.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Likening a black person to an ape or monkey is a well known racist stereotype - a bit of of not ###### sherlock there I think.

Even if that's not the intended meaning it doesn't change the underlying implication - hence the response to that chimp cartoon the other day.

There's no established racial subtext in likening a white guy to an ape. If we're arguing double standards perhaps we should be asking why the stereotype is indelibly associated with blacks and not whites.

So you are saying any ;well known racial stereotype is off limits?

That would be a long list I would think .....and quite handy.

Perhaps we should document what this OFF-LIMITS list might be so no one crosses the line in being critical in words or cartoon.

Can you name some others PD?

I would imagine its common sense Danno - if you're so outraged by the idea that a stereotype applied in one context has indelible racist meanings associated with it then perhaps we should wonder why our "white dude" ancestors created those meanings to begin with.

The idea that some double standard exists because a racial subtext is involved in comparing a black man to an ape that doesn't come into play when applied to a white man - is moronic. The "real" double standard is that the disparity of meaning exists to begin with.

Thanks for the long winded reply but I would have preferred if you had got our list of Racial stereotypes which are prohibited.

Here let me help you PD.

No jokes, cartoons or associations between Obama and any white woman.

-this clearly plays into the old Black guys lust after white woman.

No suggestion may be made that Obama is financially irresponsible.

- this plays off the racist stereotype of Blacks being "N_GGER RICH"

No one can make note of Obama on vacation when there is work to be done.

- This is playing off the old stereotype that Blacks are lazy.

No one can make note of Obamas Dancing, basketball or any other such ability as this

- is only meant to further the stereotype that Blacks are more gifted physically.

It's prohibited to mention "certain" food items associated at any occasion of the President.

- these include but not limited too, Chicken, Watermelon, fatback, collards.

It's forbidden to portray (even in joke) obama as stupid or dumb.

- This clearly plays into the old racial stereotypes of Blacks being low IQ.

No one may suggest the President is a liar,untrustworthy or not dependable.

- these clearly are associated with the Old racist stereotypes.

NO mention of the President loosing his temper and lashing out at anyone.

- this only furthers the stereotype of ANGRY BLACKMAN out of control.

PD, you seem to be an expert in these things, please add some that to mind.

Quite simply because playing your silly game of #######-for-tat isn't relevant to the point I was making. Indeed it doesn't seem relevant to ANY point - except the one I made about otherwise intelligent people being deliberately naive in denying what is an obvious and well-known racist image.

Indeed its not even clear what point YOU are making, given that list of rather bizarre generalities.

Your point seems to be that Obama can't be criticised at all without the accuser labelling him/her a racist. Nice if that were true - but if you're looking for validation of that view - this chimp comparison is pretty weak sauce.

MY point is that the specific comparison of a black man to an ape is an infamous stereotype that carries specific racial connotations which don't apply to other people. Again - the double standard at work here is the inequality of meaning that created the stereotype in the first place, not that one group occupies some sort of "privileged position" because of it.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[justashooter 430]

Shooter, I think you just went over the line of acceptable insults.

Why you did that is beyond me too, you had some interesting points and then you blow it with that diatribe against someone you don't even know anything about. You are such a weird guy.

i have no tolerance for those who abuse office to enact anger, or those who support such activity. power should not be given to those who would consider their own personal investment in a situation in the enactment of such power. integrity is a rare quality, and admirable. unfortunately, not all policemen have it.

now, how about holding the jibes and contributing something substantial to the conversation?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That doesn't seem to have much to do with the post that you responded to.

I can only conclude that you have some sort of underlying prejudice towards the police.

[Peikko 1,575]

Shooter, I think you just went over the line of acceptable insults.

Why you did that is beyond me too, you had some interesting points and then you blow it with that diatribe against someone you don't even know anything about. You are such a weird guy.

i have no tolerance for those who abuse office to enact anger, or those who support such activity. power should not be given to those who would consider their own personal investment in a situation in the enactment of such power. integrity is a rare quality, and admirable. unfortunately, not all policemen have it.

now, how about holding the jibes and contributing something substantial to the conversation?

You have no evidence that this person does/did. That not all policemen are equal and some abuse their power is a perfectly valid argument, but to go on and suggest that the poster is not only guilty of physical and verbal abuse, but that they have had to 'buy' their bride is beyond reasonable.

I also am not quite sure how you came to be the one to decide what is something 'substantial' in terms of what is valid and what is not to comment on in this thread.

[justashooter 430]

That doesn't seem to have much to do with the post that you responded to.

I can only conclude that you have some sort of underlying prejudice towards the police.

i have prejudice against stupid people.

from the beginning...to allow a policeman (of any kind) to enter your house "just to make sure you are not one of the bad guys" is stupid. "plain view" takes on a whole new meaning when a policeman is reading the book titles on your shelf, or rustling through your dresser drawers. additionally, every person who allows such unwarranted ingression encourages police to become more aggressive in their efforts to establish such as the norm. one man's folly is another man's pain.

the founding fathers suffered this kind of abuse at the hands of the king's men, and established a country where such is prohibited. we live in the only country in the world in which this is true, and yet, people are willing to give their rights away to those whom they perceive to be in power.

surely you know how law works? certain deeds are determined by representatives to be malum in pro se. they are then prohibited. certain deeds are determined to be malum prohibitum. these are then added to the prohibitions. everything else is legal, no matter what a policeman tells you. in addition, police have rules within which they must work, that are based upon case law and constitutional structure. such is not true in china. thankfully, i was not born in china.

[paul. 0]

Well, versus your botched para-military raids graph there isn't one to show the raids that saved countless lives. If everyone in the United States had your thoughts, there wouldn't be a Police Force as it is a democracy after all...

That you can't understand my arguments is plainly your simple mind, as every Officer has to deal with people on a daily basis and any Officer can tell you that it is a judgment call on every job. Judgment isn't something every person can is gifted with and it isn't something that is fool-proof when taught. All I ask for is a little respect for someone who does a job that is particularly hard while serving you as a citizen.

Oh and btw, I am the imported one and I have served in my home nations Armed Forces in numerous conflicts and now will be serving the United States of America as I feel duty to pay back the graciousness of me being allowed to remain indefinitely. This actually gives me much more authority on the subject of whether the two or remotely like each other than you, my dear friend.

I am certainly not the type of person to willy-nilly arrest someone because they bad-mouth me, but you certainly are clearly anti-police and so I am probably right in saying this argument will just go on and on, as you just won't understand the complexities that exist in dealing with human beings every day when they are agitated, upset, injured and anything in between.

[justashooter 430]

Well, versus your botched para-military raids graph there isn't one to show the raids that saved countless lives. If everyone in the United States had your thoughts, there wouldn't be a Police Force as it is a democracy after all...

That you can't understand my arguments is plainly your simple mind, as every Officer has to deal with people on a daily basis and any Officer can tell you that it is a judgment call on every job. Judgment isn't something every person can is gifted with and it isn't something that is fool-proof when taught. All I ask for is a little respect for someone who does a job that is particularly hard while serving you as a citizen.

Oh and btw, I am the imported one and I have served in my home nations Armed Forces in numerous conflicts and now will be serving the United States of America as I feel duty to pay back the graciousness of me being allowed to remain indefinitely. This actually gives me much more authority on the subject of whether the two or remotely like each other than you, my dear friend.

I am certainly not the type of person to willy-nilly arrest someone because they bad-mouth me, but you certainly are clearly anti-police and so I am probably right in saying this argument will just go on and on, as you just won't understand the complexities that exist in dealing with human beings every day when they are agitated, upset, injured and anything in between.

As an immigrant, you don't understand the value i am speaking about. it's something you've never had before. As a subject of the crown, you never had rights, before. And by the way, America isn't a democracy, rather, it's a republic.

As for respect, well, that is something that is earned, or not. As for serving the citizenry: police cars used to say "to serve and protect" on the doors. Now the say "soldiers of the law", or some such #######. As for your choice to serve America, I hope it is in armed conflict, where your mindset will be of some use. As for my relevant experience, well, you never asked.

If you choose to serve in law enforcement in any capacity, i pity those within your jurisdiction. Your stated views in an earlier post are not soemthing you want to take to job interviews in America. This is not the 3rd world, friend. Be real careful to study up on the Title 18 S1983 thing before you hit the streets.

Edited February 20, 2009 by justashooter

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

Oh and btw, I am the imported one and I have served in my home nations Armed Forces in numerous conflicts and now will be serving the United States of America as I feel duty to pay back the graciousness of me being allowed to remain indefinitely. This actually gives me much more authority on the subject of whether the two or remotely like each other than you, my dear friend.

i'm failing to see how that's even remotely connected to this conversation or to the latter part i bolded.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, versus your botched para-military raids graph there isn't one to show the raids that saved countless lives. If everyone in the United States had your thoughts, there wouldn't be a Police Force as it is a democracy after all...

That you can't understand my arguments is plainly your simple mind, as every Officer has to deal with people on a daily basis and any Officer can tell you that it is a judgment call on every job. Judgment isn't something every person can is gifted with and it isn't something that is fool-proof when taught. All I ask for is a little respect for someone who does a job that is particularly hard while serving you as a citizen.

Oh and btw, I am the imported one and I have served in my home nations Armed Forces in numerous conflicts and now will be serving the United States of America as I feel duty to pay back the graciousness of me being allowed to remain indefinitely. This actually gives me much more authority on the subject of whether the two or remotely like each other than you, my dear friend.

I am certainly not the type of person to willy-nilly arrest someone because they bad-mouth me, but you certainly are clearly anti-police and so I am probably right in saying this argument will just go on and on, as you just won't understand the complexities that exist in dealing with human beings every day when they are agitated, upset, injured and anything in between.

As an immigrant, you don't understand the value i am speaking about. it's something you've never had before. As a subject of the crown, you never had rights, before. And by the way, America isn't a democracy, rather, it's a republic.

As for respect, well, that is something that is earned, or not. As for serving the citizenry: police cars used to say "to serve and protect" on the doors. Now the say "soldiers of the law", or some such #######. As for your choice to serve America, I hope it is in armed conflict, where your mindset will be of some use. As for my relevant experience, well, you never asked.

If you choose to serve in law enforcement in any capacity, i pity those within your jurisdiction. Your stated views in an earlier post are not soemthing you want to take to job interviews in America. This is not the 3rd world, friend. Be real careful to study up on the Title 18 S1983 thing before you hit the streets.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That doesn't seem to have much to do with the post that you responded to.

I can only conclude that you have some sort of underlying prejudice towards the police.

i have prejudice against stupid people.

from the beginning...to allow a policeman (of any kind) to enter your house "just to make sure you are not one of the bad guys" is stupid. "plain view" takes on a whole new meaning when a policeman is reading the book titles on your shelf, or rustling through your dresser drawers. additionally, every person who allows such unwarranted ingression encourages police to become more aggressive in their efforts to establish such as the norm. one man's folly is another man's pain.

the founding fathers suffered this kind of abuse at the hands of the king's men, and established a country where such is prohibited. we live in the only country in the world in which this is true, and yet, people are willing to give their rights away to those whom they perceive to be in power.

surely you know how law works? certain deeds are determined by representatives to be malum in pro se. they are then prohibited. certain deeds are determined to be malum prohibitum. these are then added to the prohibitions. everything else is legal, no matter what a policeman tells you. in addition, police have rules within which they must work, that are based upon case law and constitutional structure. such is not true in china. thankfully, i was not born in china.

That's nice and all - but none of it has anything to do with the post you took umbridge at and where you labelled the poster as a blue-coated thug whose likely to give his SO a beating if she steps out of line.

[Ban Hammer 13,332]

If you choose to serve in law enforcement in any capacity, i pity those within your jurisdiction. Your stated views in an earlier post are not soemthing you want to take to job interviews in America. This is not the 3rd world, friend. Be real careful to study up on the Title 18 S1983 thing before you hit the streets.

are you suggesting that the usa is a 3rd world country?

[alienlovechild 75]

from the beginning...to allow a policeman (of any kind) to enter your house "just to make sure you are not one of the bad guys" is stupid. "plain view" takes on a whole new meaning when a policeman is reading the book titles on your shelf, or rustling through your dresser drawers. additionally, every person who allows such unwarranted ingression encourages police to become more aggressive in their efforts to establish such as the norm. one man's folly is another man's pain.

When I talking about a plain view search I was referring to the sign on the car not the house. The guy did waive his rights when the Secret Service entered his home. I don't buy slippery slope arguments that can't show any trend so I doubt the Secret Service will be emboldened by a single citizen waiving his 4th Amendment rights.