1 posted on
06/04/2012 9:54:19 AM PDT by
massmike
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
To: massmike
So which is it? Were the signs in his yard as the headline states or were the signs in front of his yard - as he states?
35 posted on
06/04/2012 10:36:15 AM PDT by
TomServo
To: massmike
I would like to see a 2nd confirmation that the signs were put near his property and not on his property. If they were in his property, I hope he sues for millions. If they weren’t then I hope they at least arrest the mob thugs who put the signs there and castrate them for the completely unnecessary assault on the homeowner.
36 posted on
06/04/2012 10:36:26 AM PDT by
Marko413
To: massmike
If it’s a public right of way, the abutting land owner does not have the right to remove the signs during the election season. There may even be a fine for doing so.
39 posted on
06/04/2012 10:52:34 AM PDT by
ROCKLOBSTER
(Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
To: massmike
41 posted on
06/04/2012 10:57:45 AM PDT by
Uri’el-2012
(Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
To: massmike
Doesn’t AZ have some odd real estate law wherein you own the building, but not the land that your home is built on?
42 posted on
06/04/2012 10:58:19 AM PDT by
knittnmom
(Save the earth! It's the only planet with chocolate!)
To: massmike
The incident took place May 1,
but it took the Taos News
one month: June 1 to report it.
45 posted on
06/04/2012 11:05:08 AM PDT by
Uri’el-2012
(Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
To: massmike
Anyone putting their political signs on my property better have my permission. If not, I’ll set them on fire.
Of course, I’ll throw out the signs too...
47 posted on
06/04/2012 11:11:56 AM PDT by
Dead Corpse
(Steampunk- Yesterday's Tomorrow, Today)
To: massmike
48 posted on
06/04/2012 11:12:29 AM PDT by
Uri’el-2012
(Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
To: massmike
I notice the article doesn’t actually say the signs were on his property. It states they were “in front of” his property. I’m betting they were on his property but the original author did not want to concede that point.
50 posted on
06/04/2012 11:14:18 AM PDT by
liberalh8ter
(If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
To: massmike
As others have mentioned, the signs were "in front" of the victim's property, not necessarily "on" it.
However, IMHO, that's not the only thing to consider. A political sign in front of your house (on what passers by would assume is your property), clearly implies that you support the candidate. If you don't support that candidate, and you never gave your permission for a sign implying that you do -- that seems to be a form of libel. You've been accused, in writing, of political views that you don't hold. Perhaps the home owner ought to sue for libel.
Also, I might have placed additional signs, adjacent to the offending ones, which said something like: "These signs were placed here without my permission, I would never vote for this man". Then, see whose signs get removed, by whom. A surveillance camera would be useful.
To: massmike
Someone on my yard putting up a political sign would meet Mr. Remington. Or, worse... the H.O.A !
58 posted on
06/04/2012 11:21:46 AM PDT by
Made In The USA
(Can we cut the BS and just say it like it is?)
To: massmike
I'm having a hard time understanding where the signs were in relation to the property. Were they actually on the guy's property, or were they on some other property in front of the homeowner's property? It's mentioned at least three times- in FRONT OF the property.
" over the removal of political signs from in front of his property. "
" find several of Cruz campaign signs in front of his property.
"it was very distasteful to put these signs in front of my property." "
Were , or were not the signs actually on the resident's property?
65 posted on
06/04/2012 1:47:23 PM PDT by
matthew fuller
(Mitt Romney is the supreme exemplification of the word SMARMY.)
To: massmike
Cruz denied having any knowledge of anyone involved in the incident, saying that it was unfortunate that Cunnyngham removed signs that did not belong to him. It's "unfortunate" that Cruz put signs on private property that did not belong to him without permission.
Shooting war is going to erupt one of these days...almost has to.
67 posted on
06/04/2012 2:55:36 PM PDT by
hattend
(Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-33 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson