Woman charges w/ making terroristic threat for objecting to "Piss on Obama" bumper sticker

[elehhhhna]

Sticky Obama issue with these McKains leads to arrest
Sugar Land police say a woman confronted a couple who had a bumper sticker showing someone urinating on candidate's name


By ERIC HANSON
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

SUGAR LAND — In case their Plantation Bend neighbors had any questions about how Doug and Wendy McKain feel about Barack Obama, the bumper sticker on their pickup could be a clue.

But when Chynethia Gragg spotted the sticker — depicting someone urinating on the name "Obama" — Sugar Land police say, she stopped to express her disapproval, and that's when things got ugly.

Gragg, 35, has been charged with making a terroristic threat after confronting the McKains, telling them the sticker was racist, police said.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5904413.html

[taterguy]

1. I love the smell of popcorn in the morning

[babylonsister]

2. Cripes. Now disapproval equates to terroristic threats?

This is ridiculous.

[Mike Daniels]

7. It wasn't just disapproval....

"Mr. McKain said Ms. Gragg said she (would) get someone to take care of him later," the report said.

I'm not quite sure how this is a "terrorist" threat but it is a "threat" nonetheless if the witness is telling the truth.

[aspergris]

35. Many states define even misdemeanor threats

as "terroristic threatening"

I used to be a cop in Hawaii and the charge was also "terroristic threatening"

Here in WA it is "harassment"

Don't get thrown off by the "terroristic" word.

It's still a piddly misdemeanor

Basically, it's disorderly conduct level of offense

[Lorien]

36. By those standards O'Reilly, Limpballs, and Coulter should have been

locked up ages ago.

[aspergris]

38. totality of the circumstances

Spouting off on the radio generally (again, totality of the circ's) is not a true threat.

Just as randi rhodes comment about bush was not a "true threat" under the law.

Directing a threat individually and especially with proximity is.

Try studying the actual laws.

[Lorien]

110. O'Reilly HAS threatened individual callers

saying he "had people" who would "hunt them down and take care of them". Try reading the actual news.

:eyes:

[aspergris]

112. try reading my post

Look up the word: PROXIMITY!

When somebody is standing in front of you, after following you home and confronts you to your face and says they will have somebody "take care of you" vs. what oreilly (and countless other talk show hosts left and right wing) spout as rhetoric are two entirely different things.

Like i said, I have to apply penal law, including this law, and have done so countless times. I have seen what is required in court, and read the case law. You, obviously have not.

Again... TOTALITY OF THE CIRC's.

You are ignoring a SIGNIFICANT aspect of the circumstnaces, which I already mentioned, which was the suspect's proximity to the victim, and fact pattern leading up to the threat.

This is why people should study the law first before prattling off .

It just makes you look silly

[aspergris]

34. No. Try reading the article

Saying she was going to get someone to "take care of him later" was the threat. In my jurisdiction, that would arguably be too vague (arguably) to qualify under our misdemeanor threats law (called Harassment), but it's a close call.

Disapproval was not the problem. Saying you will get somebody to "take care of him later" is the threat. And when coupled by the totality of the circumstances could constitute a true threat under the law

[babylonsister]

42. I read the article. Is every perceived 'threat' (and we

don't know what actually happened; I noticed Doug McKain declined to comment and Gragg was released) now 'terroristic' in nature? Sorry, not buying.

[aspergris]

44. you can "not buying"

all you want, since your political bias will lead you to your conclusion without looking at evidence.

I investigate threats cases, have investigated hundreds, have testified in such cases, seen what results in convictions and what doesn't, and am also trained to "train the trainer" in hate crimes investigations which of course include threats.

I'm telling you what the law is.

If you, otoh, want to engage your bias-drive and just assume it's not a "true threat" under the law because the suspect happens to be an (apparently) obama supporter, then that's fine.

Again, it's totality of the circs. follow the person, confront them on their property, with proximity, and say you will "take care" of them later meets the elements of the crime in most jurisdictions.

Is it a piddly misdemeanor? Yes. I'd prefer to read the actual PC statement before saying it was 100% bona fide. But based ont he fact pattern presented in the article, the evidence supports that it was.

I once listed a post that included the 4 main elements that constitute true threats under constitutional and criminal precedent. But I won't bother repeating it, since you are obviously biased and making judgment based on prejudice, not facts

[babylonsister]

47. Oh please. Your finger-wagging doesn't work with me.

There is no reason to call this woman a terrorist. That's a term that's flung around far too often for the wrong reasons imo.

Bye now.

[aspergris]

48. try reading the statutes

They are not calling her a terrorist.

The CRIME is "terroristic threatening" which has existed as a misdemeanor threats charge in many jurisdictions since LONG before 9/11

I was a cop in hawaii over 10 yrs ago and the misdemeanor threats charge under the Hawaii Revised Statutes was called "terroristic threatening".

Here in WA state, it's called "Harassment"

same essential offense, and consistent with the model penal code

Like I said, you are kneejerking, freeper-like (had to say it), WITHOUT even a cursory understanding of the penal code, or crim/const. law as related to true threats.

I once cited somebody for "terroristic threatening" in Hawaii after he ( a homeless guy) told another homeless guy at Kamaole Beach Park I in front of about 10 witnesses that he would "kick your ass , rip off your head, and piss down your throat"... lol. The charge was misdemeanor terroristic threatening, and it served the purpose of getting this idiot off the beach for the day and letting him cool down and sober up.

I think the guy had watched too many steven segal movies.

REgardless, study the penal code. These laws predate 9/11, and the "terroristic" aspect is merely the wording the legislature chose, in accordance with many other states' similar statutes.

True threats are the key issue, and again I won't go into all the case law because you clearly are kneejerking sans evidence because you don't like the metanarrative.

Here's the wording under HRS...


. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-715 (1993) defines the offense of Terroristic Threatening, in relevant part, as follows:


Terroristic threatening, defined. A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening if the person threatens, by word or conduct, to cause bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another or to commit a felony:

(1) With the intent to terrorize, or in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing, another person<.>

HRS § 707-716(1)(d) (1993) provides:

Terroristic threatening in the first degree. (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if the person commits terroristic threatening:

. . . .

(d) With the use of a dangerous instrument.

[michreject]

52. It reads like she went to jail

and was released the next day.

[n2doc]

3. Sounds like a "he said, she said" case, will likely be dismissed

Of course the message has been sent- don't bug the freepers...

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Expression of political objection = terrorism

Who could have predicted that this would happen?

Just about everyone on DU since 2002, that's who.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Yup. Thanks, **, for this wacked out atmosphere you've given us.

[aspergris]

37. False

expression of a threat, especially when combined with totality of the circ's (proximity, etc.) is the threat.

There is no "prediction this would happen"

You can criticize. You can't stand on somebody's property, confront them about their sticker and say you are going to get somebody to take care of them later.

Fwiw, I have dealt with a few political arguments on the job. None rose to criminal, and none included threats like this one.

[TechBear_Seattle]

41. I see now the problem was the OP's extremely misleading title

Nothing in the article itself suggests a charge of terrorism. The offense was a misdemeanor and the offender was released on $500 bail.

[aspergris]

43. READ THE STATUTES

"terroristic threatening" is a charge that has existed long before 9/11 and is a common terminology for making criminal threats. It is NOT considered a "charge of terrorism" despite the name

I was a cop in Hawaii over a decade ago, long before 9/11. The misdemeanor threats law was called "terroristic threatening". TT I and TT 2nd degree. TT one involved use of a dangerous weapon and was a felony, TT 2 a misdemeanor

Don't get fooled intot he thinking that the "terroristic" aspect has ANYTHING to do with 9/11. It doesn't . These laws PREDATE 9/11

[Crabby Appleton]

59. You are correct. nt

[aspergris]

61. thx. it happens on rare occasion :) n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elehhhhna]

8. Baloney! We replaced DeLay with a DEMOCRAT...

and y'all will probably see Ft.Bend County go blue this year -- our demographic has changed dramatically in the last several years. We're about 40% white, 20% Asian/Indian, 20% Hispanic, 20% African-African/African American.

Tasteless people are everywhere.

[MadHound]

9. Sounds like the woman may have gone a bit too far in her disapproval

First of all, I don't see how the sticker could be tagged as racist. Rude, crude, lewd and socially unacceptable, sure, but not racist.

Second, you don't make the threat to send somebody around later to "take care of him later," Sorry, but that is a threat of possible bodily harm. You don't issue such threats, period.

These are the sorts of tactics used by rabid RW fanatics. Verbally confront somebody on a bumper sticker, sure. But carrying it to the point of shouting and profanities is a bit extreme, threats, even more so. Everybody has the right of free speech in this country, even conservative idiots.

However I do think that the charge of making a "terroristic threat" is a little extreme. Once again, it is another example of how far overboard law enforcement has gone post 9/11.

This woman should have stated her opinion calmly, clearly, and then left.

[TexasObserver]

13. Agree with all except the part about her having a right to state her opinion.

This was not a public place. She followed them home in her car, and confronted them on their property. She was trespassing, and was charged with such.

As for the terroristic threat, that's unfortunately the way the law is styled now. It means just about any kind of threat of physical harm, literal or implied. Is it likely a woman who follows people home, parks in their driveway, and confronts them on their front yard is a woman who would threaten others? Probably. She sounds like she badly needs anger management classes.

This woman was in the wrong, from start to finish. She will be convicted. The insulting nature of the sticker in no way justifies her misconduct. Their speech is protected by the constitution. Her trespass and threats are not.

[aspergris]

39. bull. try reading the statutes

"However I do think that the charge of making a "terroristic threat" is a little extreme. Once again, it is another example of how far overboard law enforcement has gone post 9/11. "

except so called "terroristic threatening" charges existed LONG before 9/11

I used to be a cop in Hawaii LONG before 9/11. The charge for making threats was "terroristic threatening"

Many states have laws called terroristic threatening that FAR FAR predate 9/11

That's facts, not ex-post 9/11 rhetoric

[Benhurst]

10. While the bumper sticker was disrespectful, it was hardly racist.

I should hope we as a group would honor free speech. And I reserve the right to piss on the name "Bush" whenever it is mentioned.

Ms. Gragg should have ignored the bumper sticker.

[TexasObserver]

11. She was charged with Trespass, which she obviously committed.

She was charged with making a terroristic threat, which would include threatening to have someone beat up, which was alleged.

This woman was entirely out of control and inappropriate. Anyone is free to put any bumper sticker they wish on their vehicle, and if anyone doesn't like it, their option is to choose the bumper sticker THEY want, and to put it on their car.

We never have the right to follow another driver to confront them on their property about the bumper sticker on their car.

And the woman was wrong. The bumper sticker was insulting, it wasn't racist. Those stickers of the little boy pissing on something are everywhere, and he's pissing on everything.

[elehhhhna]

12. It's not racist, it's ignorant, offensive and disgusting though.

IMO her alleged "threats" aren't "terroristic"...they ARE threats but it's a he said-she said...so who knows what she actually said?

[TexasObserver]

17. She may have made terroristic threats under the law of Texas.

Like it or not, that's a common charge under Texas law for threatening to have someone beat up, attacked, or taken care of.

I do not have any problem believing that this woman issued such threats. In fact, just the opposite. She obviously has a few loose screws. She lacks any self control, and who gave her the idea she has any right to follow home someone whose bumper sticker offends her, block their driveway, and confront them on their front yard?

She was way out of line, she committed a trespass, and probably a terroristic threat. She will be convicted on at least one of the charges, unless they give her Deferred Adjudication, and let her attend anger management classes, which she really needs.

[Marrah_G]

20. She followed these people to their house- that alone is disturbing

[TexasObserver]

23. Yeah, that's a pretty serious loss of self control.

Road rage, even.

I simply cannot imagine anyone getting that worked up around Houston about bumper stickers. I mean, there's a hell of a lot worse than that one on vehicles here. And to top it off, it's a good way to get shot down here. If a person has road rage, it's only a matter of time before someone down here will whip out a gun and start shooting at them.

[aspergris]

40. exactly

and the threats charge is bolstered by the totality of the circ's which as police officers is key to determing "true threats" (study the case law) vs. rhetoric.

She followed the driver, confronted her on her property AND said she would "take care" of the person later.

THAT is why it is a threat.

Disapproval was not the issue. She could have called the person an idiot and left

also, the charge of racism by the threatener is stupid. pissing on obama is not racist. I've seen stickers pissing on Ford's for example (chevy owners). It's a common disrespect meme. Has NOTHING to do with race

[Marrah_G]

14. It wasn't racist- she crossed a line by making threats

"terroristic threats"? WTf does that mean.

[elehhhhna]

18. that's the part I find ridiculous.

[TexasObserver]

19. Terroristic Threats under Texas law

I do absolutely no criminal law, but this is from the cited online source, which appears accurate:

A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.
The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:

TERRORISTIC THREAT
(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
1. cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
2. place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
3. prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place;
4. cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
5. place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
6. influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.


http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

[man4allcats]

15. It's not a bumper sticker I would like either, but

according to the linked article:

"McKain told the officer he and his wife were driving home when they noticed a female motorist looking closely at his truck. The couple drove home then pulled into their driveway.

"Mr. McKain said shortly later the same person (Ms. Gragg) pulled up to his residence (blocking his driveway behind his truck.) Mr. McKain said Ms. Gragg began to rant and rave about the sticker on the back of his truck," the court document states.

McKain told police Gragg shouted numerous profanities at him and his wife.

"Mr. McKain said Ms. Gragg said she (would) get someone to take care of him later," the report said."

Sorry, but if this report is accurate, Ms. Gragg was out of line. I'd call the cops too if someone followed me to my house, knocked on my door and started in on me about a bumper sticker that, while perhaps offensive to some, is not demonstrably racist and certainly within the bounds of free speech. In democracies, the following applies: I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[Squatch]

21. She's lucky she didn't get shot/killed

Castle Doctrine

[TexasObserver]

24. Especially in Ft. Bend County.

Everyone in Ft. Bend county has a gun, except for those who have more than one gun. It's basically a suburb county of Harris county, home of Houston. Sugarland is increasingly urban, but it's far from urbane.

[DS1]

16. It was the McKains on Plantation Road with a bumper sticker

/clue

[B Calm]

22. Deranged republican cowards are scared of a 35 year old women, lol!

[TexasObserver]

27. There's no justification for her conduct, no matter what her political leanings.

Or theirs.

It's a bumper sticker. She doesn't have to like it or approve of it, but she does have to respect the right others have to put their bumper stickers on their vehicle. She followed someone home. She's not mentally sound. She committed a trespass, and made threats.

You're not doing Democrats or Obama any favor by approving her actions.

[B Calm]

29. I still think it is funny that the mouth breathing cowards were scared of her!

[Marrah_G]

31. Somehow I doubt you would react the same if the situation was reversed.

[B Calm]

33. This old veteran wouldn't scream terrorist. If this R/W knuckle dragger

wants to fight terrorism, why don't he sign up?

[Mike Daniels]

46. You should read the posts by the LEO earlier in the thread

Apparently that is what the crime is officially called - "terroristic threat" - and according to him the phrase was in effect prior to 9/11. I seriously doubt the victim referred to it as such when he/she called the police.

Continue to defend someone who over-reacted to a sticker that wasn't racist, purposely followed someone home, blocked that person's car in the driveway and then threatened to have them taken care of if you wish. My guess is you'd be speaking out of the other side of your mouth if the political affiliations of the principals were reversed.

[Marrah_G]

50. The charge has a different meaning then the one you are using.

[TexasObserver]

53. You sound like McCain.

Aren't you the tough guy?!

I'm a veteran, too, but I don't think that gives me special status, as you obviously do. Bush is a veteran. So is McCain, and they're both idiots.

[TexasObserver]

51. I think it's sad that you worship people who have road rage.

And behave in such a brownshirted fashion.

If this were a rightwinger chasing down someone at DU about their bumper stickers, would you feel the same?

[Caliman73]

107. Agreed

Insulting people for their political affiliation and calling them cowards for handling a situation lawfully is not a good representation of an open Democratic mind. Would you have applauded them if they had assaulted her verbally or physically. Who is to say they were scared? I am sure I could handle verbal or physical threats from many people, but if they were violating my rights and the law, I would want them to have legal consequences too.

[dysfunctional press]

70. i'm sorry, but the mckains are not the 'deranged' part of the incident.

that designation belongs to ms. gragg and her conduct.

and a crazy lady following me home and making threats to send someone after me over a bumper sticker would give me the creeps as well- i'd definitely make a police report, just so there's a record of it in case something were to happen.

[Alter Ego]

25. She should have just ignored it.

If the McKains are so stupid that they feel the need to put something like that on their pickup then they are beyond reaching and no amount of "disapproval" is really going to budge that.

[SmileyRose]

26. Ya, but now everyone in Houston knows the McKains are jerks.

Wait till one of them has to find a job. :)

[TexasObserver]

28. Just the opposite. Now they all know the psycho who followed them home is a jerk.

This is the Houston area. You won't find many people who will agree with her action. She got what she deserved, which is arrested.

[Marrah_G]

32. Wrong- everyone now knows the woman who threatened them is a lunatic.

[B Calm]

45. After the past 7 1/2 years, the lunatic is the one with a anti democrat sticker

on his vehicle.

[Marrah_G]

49. No the lunatic is the one who thinks they have a right to bully and threaten others

ESPECIALLY over politics.

The woman has mental problems.

[TexasObserver]

54. Putting a bumper sticker expressing one's political thoughts: NORMAL

Following home someone who has a bumper sticker you don't like and confronting them in their front yard: NOT NORMAL.

If you cannot acknowledge that, you might want to think about getting anger management classes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. Expressing stupid, racist political thoughts: fuck 'em.

[TexasObserver]

63. That's utter nonsense.

First, it wasn't racist, and no amount of claiming it was will make that true. So stop claiming it was something it wasn't.

Second, they have every right to put whatever bumper sticker on their vehicle they wish. It's not your option or anyone else's to follow home and harass someone whose opinions differ from yours.

Third, if this happened to you by some redneck who followed you home, you'd be outraged, and rightly so.

[dysfunctional press]

72. how is it racist?

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

73. It's anti-Obama, pro-McCain. Ergo, racist.

In the same way this is Creationist:

[dysfunctional press]

75. ergo- you don't understand the meaning of the word 'racist'.

and that's sad, really.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. How about an analogy.

You're in charge of hiring people for a position.

One guy comes highly qualified. A bang up resume. Knows the job inside and out. Comes to the interview with highest recommendations. The other employees can't wait for him to start. Has an impeccable education. And so on.

The other guy comes into the office. He's clearly unqualified. He's past the age of mandatory retirement. He insults you and lies about his resume to your face. He jokes about doing the same lousy job that the previous guy did. And he's apparently senile, or perhaps drunk.

The first guy's black, the second guy's white.

Anybody hiring the second guy is racist, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[yawnmaster]

84. Thats not analogous. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Yes, it is.

McCain and Obama are interviewing for a job, the voters are hiring them.

[yawnmaster]

86. Wrong. It is a invalid analogy. It is not analogous to the situation. nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

87. Sure it is.

If you don't think it is, please explain why not.

I don't think you've got anything that'll hold water.

[yawnmaster]

89. Your analogy is too black and white (pun intended)...

but the actual situation is not.
One needs to not think in binary terms when analog thought is needed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. The actual situation is just as black and white.

Obama really is that qualified, McCain really is that obvious a hack.

[yawnmaster]

91. But qualification is not a black and white issue.

So I see what you are saying,
if you think Obama is qualified and you vote for McCain, then you are racist.

So it may be true if you, Bornagin, vote for McCain, then you are racist!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

92. Obama is clearly more qualified.

Period.

No argument.

[dysfunctional press]

97. and that would be based on what criteria, exactly...?

:shrug:

[exothermic]

93. There are people who are against Obama simply because he is black, and

there are some who are for him simply for the same identical reason. They are just 2 different sides of the same idiotic coin.

[dysfunctional press]

96. what is that an analogy of...? surely not the current presidential race, that's for sure...

if obama is 'highly qualified', then mccain is even moreso- if you're going to go by legislative experience as a qualifier...and there is no mandatory retirement age for a potus. there is also the matter of party platform that's involved with selecting a president- people may not be 100% for their party's candidate, but they'll vote for them in order to vote for the party platform.

btw- going by your..."logic"(for lack of a better word)...doesn't that also mean that everyone who voted for obama in the democratic primaries(especially the later ones) were misogynists, and everyone who voted for hillary was a racist...? :crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. You think McCain is more qualified for president?

Interesting.

[dysfunctional press]

100. what is your criteria for a person being qualified?

you're the one who chose the word- explain your terms for being "qualified" (and remember, it's supposed to be analogous to hiring someone for a "postion")

and btw, you didn't describe it as one person merely being "more qualified"- in your analogy, it was "highly qualified" vs. "clearly unqualified".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. Oh, well, let's see.

Being able to find Iraq on an unmarked map, for one.

And not being a racist, for another.

But you think McCain would be a better president, so what are your ideas of qualifications?

[dysfunctional press]

102. where did i say that mccain would be a better president?

and your only two qualifiers for a position paying $400,000/yr is being able to find a foreign country on an unmarked map, and not being in your opinion a "racist"...?

wow. just...wow.
i'm guessing that you don't work in h.r.

or then again, you probably do.
i wouldn't be surprised to find out that you run h.r. for a major corporation. :rofl:

btw- where exactly did i say that mccain would be a better president?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. When you said McCain is even moreso highly qualified for president than Obama.

"and your only two qualifiers for a position paying $400,000/yr is being able to find a foreign country on an unmarked map, and not being in your opinion a "racist"."

Basic geography is a pre-requisite for the job. And you can't represent the people when your a bigot against many of them.

Of course, I can come up with plenty of other qualifiers. The only thing McCain beats Obama in is lack of melanin.

"btw- where exactly did i say that mccain would be a better president?"

Your little Freudian slip, already quoted above.

[dysfunctional press]

104. you left out the qualifier...i guess that's ANOTHER word that you have "understandment issues" with.

what i said was:"if obama is 'highly qualified', then mccain is even moreso- if you're going to go by legislative experience as a qualifier

so- if you're saying that i said that mccain would be a better president, then ergo that can only mean that you consider legislative experience to be the main qualifier to be potus. ergo, you must actually support mccain, and are only feigning in your support for obama...

i put it to you then that YOU, by your own definition, are CLEARLY a racist.

so there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

105. You think McCain has a better legislative record than Obama?

My goodness. I think his legislative record makes him dangerously unqualified.

But I'm glad for these insights into your opinion of McCain.

[dysfunctional press]

108. i said that he has more experience...YOU used the word "better"...

the english language and definitions of words really aren't your forte, are they?

[John Kerry VonErich]

94. Lets take it a step further.....

What would happen if someone say Anti-McKinney = racist?

[Mike Daniels]

55. deleted

[michreject]

56. You think all business owners

in Texas are Democrats?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

57. What an inappropriate comment!

A psycho gets arrested for following home a citizen, confronting him in his front yard, threatening him, and you use the occasion to malign 30 million US citizens, half of them Democrats.

Texas is home to one tenth of the US population, and most of them aren't the caricatures in your head. Molly Ivins or Ann Richards ring a bell? We're not all Dubya fans.

[Beacool]

58. I guess this woman never heard of freedom of speech.

I've seen plenty of offensive bumper stickers over the years. It would have never occurred to me to insult the occupants of the vehicle, let alone follow them home to make threats. As much as I may hate what someone has on the bumper of their car, it is their right to have that sticker on their vehicle.

Besides, the bumper sticker may have been offensive, but it was not racist.

How about if the sticker instead of saying "Obama" it said "McCain" or "Bush", would some of you have been so outraged by the truck owners' reaction to this woman?

I think not.......

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

60. Sure it was racist.

It was pro-McCain, anti-Obama.

And the only reason to believe in that cause is racism.

[TexasObserver]

64. The only thing we can be sure of is that you don't know what "racism" is.

It was anti Obama. That doesn't make it racist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Sure it does.

Only racists are anti-Obama.

[TexasObserver]

66. That's irrational and wrong.

Or are you like George Bush? Do you think you can declare things and that makes them so?

Under your theory, anyone who doesn't support Obama only does so because of racism. Does that include the blacks and Hispanics that don't support him? Does that include everyone who chooses Barr, or Nader, or to stay home because they want a woman to be president?

The bumper sticker was not racist, and it will never be racist. Like I said, this tells us you don't know the meaning of the word.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Any one who supports McCain is a racist.

That's anybody who's not supporting Obama.

90% of African American are supporting Barack Obama, and the remaining 10% is a statistical error. Like Jews who vote for Buchanan.

Bob Barr and Ralph Nader are both racists themselves, so I've no sympathy with their supporters.

"stay home because they want a woman to be president?"

LOL. No such people exist.

"The bumper sticker was not racist, and it will never be racist. Like I said, this tells us you don't know the meaning of the word"

The McKains are clearly racist, as are the McKain supporters. We both know the meaning of the word, it's just that one of us is willing to apologize for it.

[dysfunctional press]

74. you forgot the sarcasm smilie- people might think you were being serious.

just a head's up. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. I could have worded it better.

How about: Everybody who's anti-Obama is racist.

[dysfunctional press]

78. how about labelling people enmasse is really a stupid thing to do?

especially when it obviously isn't true.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. Nah.

Being against Obama is a stupid thing to do. And racist.

[dysfunctional press]

99. if somebody is against obama because he represents the democratic party platform...

which they are against-
how is that "racist"? :shrug:

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

106. So anyone who would vote against JC Watts or Alan Keyes is racist too?

?

[Cid_B]

95. What about blacks...

who support Obama and are racist against whites or other ethnic groups?

Please put your broad broad broad brush back where you found it.

[Mike Daniels]

67. So everyone who voted for Hillary in the primaries is a racist?

This may be news to you but there there are legitimate reasons for people to be against Obama that have nothing to do with racism.

I have lots of relatives who are Republican who will likely not vote for Obama. However, they wouldn't voted for him even if his name was Preston Hamilton Smith and he was as white as the driven snow.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. Some of them, certainly.

But the primaries are over.

The only reason to vote against Obama in the General is racism.

Obama is clearly the better candidate. Fuck your relatives.

[Beacool]

76. Obama is the "better candidate" to us Democrats.

He is obviously not the better candidate to people who do not share our same political viewpoint.

Saying that everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist, is as inaccurate as saying that anyone who wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the nominee is sexist.

We have more than one political party in this country and people have a right to vote for anyone they choose. I wouldn't want anyone telling me who to vote for, and I won't presume to tell others how to vote.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. Obama is a better candidate period.

"is as inaccurate as saying that anyone who wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the nominee is sexist."

If Hillary Clinton was running against a clearly inferior candidate, charges of sexism would be justified.

"We have more than one political party in this country and people have a right to vote for anyone they choose. I wouldn't want anyone telling me who to vote for, and I won't presume to tell others how to vote."

Yes, people in this country have a right to cast a racist vote if they want to.

[Mike Daniels]

81. Nice discourse.

You've just proven that some Democrats are just as repulsive, unpleasant and irrational as posters on a certain other discussion board on the internet.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

83. Yes, but unlike republicans...

we're not racist.

[Beacool]

71. I assume you forgot the "sarcasm" emoticon?

:eyes:

[exothermic]

88. Chynethia...is a fucking loon.

The bumper sticker is stupid but she just went way overboard...

[dysfunctional press]

109. although not so much as our own bornaginhooligan, as this thread has so painfully demonstrated.

nt

[exothermic]

111. LOL! I wondered who was behind that 'ignored' label.

:D