Do you remember the RNC way back when? While watching the RNC at the GOP Headquarters in Huntington, WV, shots were fired. (Source)

It happened again. This time at the GOP Headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee. (Source)

These stories are rare and far between but:

1. Do these stories have an impact?
   
2. Are the zealots in control of the parties?
   
3. Will it get worst?
   And this question, which I hate to ask, but I have to:
   
4. Is this the act of a zealot, or a Rove tactic to place Bush/Cheney under attack by democrats?

More zealots?

Image

In Milwauke, WI protestors storm Bush/Cheney Headquarters.

Protest or Zealots?

Protestors Ransack Bush/Cheney
2 People Receive Minor Injuries During Protest

In Orlando, FL protestors storm and then ransack Bush/Cheney headquarters.

Are they protesting? Since when have protest been about 'ransack' and violence?

yehoshua,

I'm only going to answer one of your question. There are zealots in both parties. Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards signs are yanked out of yards, bumper stickers ripped off cars.

I live in a duplex and I've made my neighbor mad by putting a Kerry/Edwards sign on my side of the lawn. I'm retired and he works. If he expresses his anger to me in words, I'll offer to go over to Republican headquarters and get him a Bush/Cheney sign for his side of the yard. If Carville and Matalin can share bedrooms and bathrooms, then people should be able to express their electoral preferences without creating anger.

To answer you specifically, I don't think zealots have control either party, but the real danger is that we've lost or are losing the middle or what historian Arthur Schlesiner, Jr. called "the vital center."

This is more then bumper stickers, signs and neighbors. This is ransacking and shotting. I think there is a line between signs and bumper stickers and ransacking, violence, and shooting.

Only a zealot would resort to violence as a means to 'end discussions.'

I plan to use this thread to show both sides of the zealots. I only have Bush/Cheney examples now, but feel free to add the zealot activities of the right wing wackos.

I'll get to your questions in a moment, Joshua.

I certainly can't comment on the Knoxville, TN story, as this is the first I've read of it, except to say that I'm grateful that no one was hurt, and I hope that the perpetrators are eventually caught.

The Huntington WV story may be a whole other kettle of fish, however, and relates to your last question.

You may want to "Google" the name Phil Parlock. He claims to have been accosted by overzealous and violent Democrats. Not once, not twice, but four separate times.

The first, in 1996, he was just minding his business at a Clinton rally, quietly holding a sign, when Clinton supporters tore the sign from his hands.

In 2000, As a Bush campaign manager in Huntington, he was supposedly put-upon by Gore supporters, who again ripped his pro-Bush signs from him, and shoved him to the ground.

In early September of this year, he was at a Kerry rally, with his 10-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter, holding up pro-Bush signs, and those nasty 'ol Democrats ripped the sign from his daughter's hands, tore it into pieces, making her cry, and then threw the pieces back in dad's face.

As an additional coincidence, at each of these attacks, just happened to be a reporter for the local paper, with a camera pointed in the right direction at the right time to record the injustices Parlock has suffered at the hands of Democrats.

Then, there's the shooting at the Huntington WV campaign headquarters. Guess who was there that night? That's right, Phil Parlock. Another coincidence, or is this just the unluckiest guy alive, to be violently attacked by left-wing political zealots every time he attends a political function? Parlock has been called a "serial victim", with more than a little justification, in my book.

In answer to the questions:

1. It may have an impact, on the die hard believers, especially if your side is the victim of such actions, in hardening your position and resolve for your candidate.

2. No, I don't believe the zealots are in control of the parties at all. These seem, for the most part, to be rather isolated incidents.

3. Will it get worse? Doubtful. Again, this seems to be a few crackpots, rather than an orchestrated effort on the part of the parties at large.

4. I don't think it's a Rove tactic. However, in the case of Phil Parlock, it may be that he's trying to drum up sympathy, and portray Democrats as evil and violent. He may succeed somewhat locally, unless he's exposed as a fraud, but I doubt the national campaign is going to make a big deal out of all of it.

2. Are the zealots in control of the parties?

To answer the question again, No! zealots do not control either party.

I think you are misplacing emphasis in the quote above. While ripping off or up bumper stickers and yard signs doesn't rise to the level of shooting, all of these actions are merely symptoms of a larger disease. The disease is a mixture of immaturity, hatred, ignorance, intolerance and polarization.

Zealots and criminal activity is nothing new or confined to this election. You wanted an example of right wing wackos. Get a load of the Phineas Priesthood. See link:

http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/killers.html

It's easy to think that someone is pulling signs from yards, but elementary kids do that all the time just to be...well, kids. Likewise, there are countless shootings in this country for no apparent reason. Trying to connect protesters with the shooting of campaign headquarters is tenuous at best. It could be that whoever took a shot at the GOP HQ was just some punk with too much time on his hands. All you have to go on here is pure speculation and conjecture-though maybe in a day or two you will have more evidence of such a plan by zealots? We do have anrachist groups and people like that, but last time I checked, the weathermen and other groups died out a long time ago.


1.)No-they have little to no impact. The media isn't running stories about these events and if Fox isn't hyperventilitating about it, evidently Republicans don't feel there is a connection between the events.

2)No, zealots are not in control of the parties by any means. There are those who disrupt speeches and rallies-but that has been a long-standing tradition. I'm amazed that a few isolated incidences are being treated as a nationwide trend. The fact that this stuff doesn't happen more often is proof that things are o.k.

Have an impact on what, how people will vote? Probably not.



Sure, if you mean true believers. If you mean Zealots as in the Biblical sense, no. Those folks are the anarchists, unaffiliated with either party. Some radical Greens might fit in with Biblical Zealots.

Just for clarity, the Zealots in Jesus' time wanted to violently overthrow the Roman occupation. One scholar I read speculated that Jesus might have been a Zealot.



Violence? That's always a possibility, especially with labor disputes. Messing with people's incomes tends to bring out the worse behavior. Some folks get too emotional toward the end of a campaign as well.



I'll assume you mean the shooting stories. The first one could have been a setup. It's one of the plot line possibilities. Hey, let's have someone shoot at us while watching the convention! It'll be great publicity and make the Demos look bad.

The second one could have been a diversion for the concurrent bank robbery.

Whatever the motivations, we can't assume these were registered Democrats doing the shooting. It's an unknown at this time. The shooters may not be, and I suspect are not, registered at all. I doubt that they vote.

And I doubt that a registered member of a party that condones gun control would use a gun to make some sort of statement, unless the person has a mental problem.

In which case, politics has nothing to do with the shooting.

Do these stories have an impact?

They do not have an impact on how people vote in general. However, if you have a group of people who think such tactics are OK, when they see them in action it might energize them to vote. Yet, considering what a small minority of Americans are violent activists on all sides it won't likely impact the election.

Are the zealots in control of the parties?

Zealots as in the violent ones you refer too? No. However, political extremists control both parties. The moderate majority of America is not given a voice by the Republicans or the Democrats.

Will it get worst?

As a former activist for Perot, a former local volunteer for the democrats and a former member of the Young Republicans I have seem people on all political sides do things like steal signs, deface political offices, etc. The people in question here are teenagers. Teens tend to inject so much drama into everything that they feel compelled to act against those they feel are wrong for America, lying to America, etc. "Zealot" teens like this can be found on all sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes, adults from one side or the other take advantage of them and secretly promote their activates (on the local level) but this is rare at best.

Is this the act of a zealot, or a Rove tactic to place Bush/Cheney under attack by democrats?

It could be, at least one of the victims here has a questionable past. However, this has been a tactic employed on occasion throughout political history, though, unless you feel that the guy firing on the Clinton Whitehouse was really a Clinton supporter I don't think this tactic has ever gone so far as shooting or any other potentially deadly actions.

The use of this kind of tactic is usually best done by having a supporter attend the opponents events and be so obnoxious that it enrages someone in the crowd (preferably a publicly known person), resulting in an attack on the "victim". This can cast a bad light on the supporters of a candidate which can make some fence sitters reconsider if they want to be associated with them.

Interestingly, most of the time you hear of such an "attack" you rarely hear of any charges being filed and even more scarce is hearing of anyone actually being prosecuted for such actions.



No offense meant to Bof here. However I take exception to groups like this being associated to the right wing. I equally take exception to groups like the eco-terrorists, ELF being associated to the left wing.

The kinds of idiots are there own wing. The wacko wing.

The actions of this group the Phineas Priesthood in no way fits into the right wing political philosophy, just as the tactics used by ELF in no way fit into the left wing ideology.

It has become a common practice to associate such groups with one side or the other, so I don't blame anyone for doing it. However, I feel it contributes to the polarization of America and is inaccurate at best.

I don’t understand how this follows. There are always wackos in any “cause”; they are generally not representative of the majority. That makes about as much sense as assuming every ex-football player has a grudge against strange German men who play with lions and tigers and will take some shots at them, too.

Please. This is such a non-issue. BoF put it best when he said

With the gun culture in the US, there may be some who would equate the shooting with ripping off a sign. Got a problem? Shoot it. By no means an exclusively Democrat mentality…far from it.

I read through the link. I am hard pressed to see what racism and the right wing have in common. Can you explain how this group is trying to place into office a 'republican' leader or to destroy a 'democrat' leader like the other examples?

Hard-pressed? Come on, yehoshua. Strom Thurmond. Bob Jones University. James Hart, for crying out loud. I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination that all Republicans are racist, but I'm definitely not ignorant to the fact that there are strong parallels between being racist the further right-wing you go.

Therefore, racism is not universal but dependant on what side of the political spectrum you are on? And the further right you go the more racist you are?

Let me get this straight, there are no racist the further left you go on the political spectrum?

Sure, that's exactly what I said. "Strong parallels between being racist the further right-wing you go" is just a euphemism for "there are no racists on the left side of the political spectrum."

I'm very interested for you to refute my evidence, even better with evidence of "lefty" racists instead of taking my statement and twisting it into a black-and-white stereotype.

One of the most notorious racist democrats; Robert Byrd. Will the name suffice, or should I post some links for you?

Clarification

My link to the Phinesa Priesthood, was not intended to introduce racism into this debate, but to provide an example of right-wing wackos that jushua requested. There are many para-military groups, especially in the northern tier of states, most of them are rebelling against federal authority and most, if not all, are capable of violence.

Another example of right-wing wackos that have used violence is the "Army of God." Again, this is an example as Joshua requested, not part of the larger debate and not intended to sidetrack things onto the abortion issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyN...rax_011128.html

I have header of the Army of God, but this is not an example of 'right wing' wackos. In order to be a right wing wacko you must attack ONLY Kerry/Edwards headquarters, or any other democratic political headquarters.

You see the PPs and he AGs are nothing more then extremist on their issues. Issues of racism or abortion. I am looking for extremist on the political race. People who would stop at nothing for their party to win, including shootings, ransacking, and violence.

I am not looking for people who will stop at nothing for their wacko causes. (ie AG PP, GP, SC, etc.) And will attack part headquarters, like Nixon did.

yehoshua,

Why do you say this not an example of right wing wackos? I think you are drawing your definition a bit too narrowly. In fact, organized wackos are probably more dangerous than people who commit random acts of violence against a campaign headquarters.

These groups have been around for a long time and they can as easily be issue specific as party specific.

It is, however, a neat little trick to ask for examples and then claim they don't fit the parameters of your emerging definition.

It's no trick. I understand the wacko's you want to show, and I could flower this page with Greenpeace tying itself to something, but that is not what I was focusing on. Especially under the 'Elections Forum.'

I know these people are wackos. I know I said right wing wackos. But I meant wackos that do damage to headquarters. You must have someone who did something to a Kerry headquarters.

While you do mention Bush/Cheney, you do not pre-qualify your request to limit examples to what has happened to Kerry/Edwards heardquarters.

If you had drawn your original parameters a bit tighter, there might not be need to redefine them after the fact and at each and every turn. I simply responded to the request for examples as you wrote it.

Burglary?

President Bush's campaign office in Spokane burglarized, vandalized

Zealots

Bush/Cheney Camp reponds.

Letter on Voter Intimidation to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney

Will this get time in the media circle?

If not will it cause Bush/Cheney Zealots to take matters into their own hands too?
I think it will. Zealots are zealots are zealots.

yehoshua,

You have linked us to the Bush campaign webpage--not a paragon of honesty and objectivity, but certainly a model of distortion. You have made my day. I wouldn't find the Kerry/Edwards webpage an unbiased resource either. Surely, you can find a better source for your argument.

Do these stories have an impact?

Scarborough, the gang at FNC, Rush and Hannity might pick it up. I don't know whether the mainstream press will take the bate. Since the Dan Rather story, legitimate media seem to be a bit more cautious.

IMHO this was a non-issue when you first posted it and that hasn't changed.

WAIT A SECOND. I linked you there to the response from the Bush/Cheney team with regards to the recent events at headquarters across the nation. Everything else has been linked to local newspapers and tv news sources that reported the stories. You were not suppose to go there with the thought "oh here are some unbias news source about the events." But with the thought "this is what Bush is doing about it."

I commend you for those instances where you have linked us to legitimate news media. In general, I don't think it helps arguments on either side to provide links to campaign webpages.

Did Racicot send copies to major newspapers and ABC. NBC, CNN. CBS, etc?

Oh ho, but it doesn't matter what his source is. Thanks to yehoshua's vigilant browsing and discerning eye we know who the blasted heathens are in this corner of the world.

Are the zealots in control of the parties?
In this blip of a thread I'd say the Democratic zealots are out of control, but I'm not sure that'll last with a fight for the heart and soul of the liberal party coming to a "think" tank near you soon. Republicans have clamped down on or done a better job of distancing themselves from fringe elements since the 80's. Until we catch up way to go Republicans! You paradigms of restraint, you.

Very well, but you have to sign up to read it.

Bush Campaign Accuses AFL-CIO of Vandalism

Interesting thing in the article


Based upon the letter and the spokeswoman, can it be safe to say that the AFL-CIO was not involved? Or could this be an attack on Tom DeLay's comments directly? Is the AFL-CIO really a zealot? Or is a real group of zealots undermining both Bush/Cheney and the AFL-CIO? Or once again, is the Rove up to his usual tricks?

The AFL-CIO would tell it's membership to vote for the Democrat, even if that Democrat had done things they thought specifically went against labor. That to me is being a Zealot, but by the definition this topic implies they certainly are not.

As a Union member, and a member of a VERY politically active union I feel safe in saying that unions simply do not advocate actions like vandalism and the like. THe work very hard to promote candidates (so long as they are Democrats) and work hard to get members to volunteer on campaigns, attend rallies, attend the opposition's rallies, and most importantly VOTE (they way they want you too). But they NEVER advocate direct action like vandalism, or violence.

If the people who did such acts just happened to be union members, that does not mean that the union directed them to do it or even encourages such behavior.

:::Stepping up on the Soapbox::::

On another note, for those in this thread (as well as other topics)who disagree with each other, PLEASE stay on topic and avoid the personal slights and insults. AD is a wonderful place. And it is a wonderful place because the vast majority of people here discuss topics and do not take discussions to a personal level or into the gutter. Before you post that little snide comment directed at someone else here, stop and re-read it. Then ask yourself:

If you were brand new to AD, and that topic with the personal comments was the first one you read what would your impression of AD be?

If you can't keep from getting personal even after considering that then remember, personal comments that insult others cause many on AD to think less of you.

Getting close to the election is no excuse in my book, and this stuff is really starting to get irritating.

:::Stepping down from SoapBox:::

Tennessee Democrats Compare Republicans To Special Olympics Children

I thought Democrats were about compassion? These can not be Democrats. The show a total lack of compassion towards Bush, Special Olympics, and mental handicapped. Is this how you win in Tennessee? Seems disturbing to me.

I thought that link came up in Register to Vote - get clean underwear!, Crazy stuff in Campaign 2004 for a reason. I couldn't find this story elsewhere nor could I find a campaign website for the Democrat in question. Here's Craig Fitzhugh's contact page with a snapshot bio if you want to send him your love. Some items of interest on that Christian website:





Any experts on gonorrhea here, or do they think they stand a better chance of improving American society by scaring women into chastity?



If you occasionally expose yourself to pornography—watch out! You may have to register as a sex offender in the future. Only in America would Catharine MacKinnon falsely be quoted as saying "all sex is rape" for being an outspoken feminist and Traditional Values Coalition catch a break for their Christianity.

Simplest definition of a zealot: a fanatical partisan.

Debate questions: Do these stories have an impact? Are the zealots in control of the parties? Will it get worst? Is this the act of a zealot, or a Rove tactic to place Bush/Cheney under attack by democrats?

First example: Left wing wackos attacking Republican campaign headquarters.

Follow-up anecdotal example: Right wing wackos killing abortion doctors.

Follow-up commentary: "I know I said right wing wackos. But I meant wackos that do damage to headquarters. You must have someone who did something to a Kerry headquarters."

Revised thread requirement: Discussion of left wing wacko politicians allegedly doing stupid things, such as passing flyers of Down's Syndrome child with Bush face, allowed as of 06:00 PM Wednesday, October 13th, 2004.

Verdict: Getting irritating indeed. Thankfully I don't care what others think of me.

I understand that the story I'm about to tell doesn't rise to the level of vandalism yehoshua mentioned in his redefined thread, but it's an interesting tale. When one gets to the bottom of this whole issue, it's about not wanting someone else to express an opinion that differs from theirs.

Yesterday afternoon, I went to Borders to drink coffee and read the Sunday paper. As I was leaving, I glanced in my rear view mirror and noticed that someone had placed a little oval "W 04" sticker on my rear window. I got out and looked. They hadn't removed my Kerry sticker, merely added the one for Bush. Perhaps the person who put it there wanted to balance things out--perhaqps they thought the imbalance of sticker weight might some how cause my small Honda car based SUV to topple over.

When I got home I printed out one of those red circles with a line slanting rightward in the middle. I cut it out with scissors an using spray photo mounting adhesive, pasted it over the Bush sticker. It then said "No W 04."

Today I went to Sam's. While inside, someone removed the red circle, but left the Bush and Kerry stickers. We're back to "W 04."

I made another "No Circle" and replaced the one someone took at Sam's, Yet another volly and we're back to "No W 04."

We have two weeks to go, but I can make lemonade out of all the lemons the Bush people roll my way. LOL

No, no yehoshua! You got it all wrong. It's the Republicans that are all about "compassion." Dubya is a "compassionate conservative." Remember? Dick "F-Bomb" Cheney on the other hand...maybe not so much.

Here's an example of "compassionate conservatism" in action:

U.S. Senate candidate Alan Keyes told a rally Saturday that incest was "inevitable" for children raised by gay couples because the children might not know both biological parents.

"If we do not know who the mother is, who the father is, without knowing all the brothers and sisters, incest becomes inevitable," Keyes told the Marquette Park rally held to oppose same-sex marriages.

"Whether they mean it or not, that is what will happen. If you are masked from your knowing your biological parents, you are in danger of encountering brothers and sisters you have no knowledge of."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-gay17.html

Your selective outrage yehoshua would make you a fitting press secretary for Lynne Cheney.

3. Will it get worst?

I certainly hope it doesn't get worse on any level.

The American presidential election is as much about process as it is outcome. When people contaminate the process they contaminate the outcome.

I'm feeling sort of upbeat today. No, I'm not certain Kerry is going to win, though I'm cautiously optimistic. If I may be permitted a short personal story I would appreciate it.

The lady who cleans my abode comes tomorrow. I have books lying all over the place and nowhere to put them.

About an hour ago, I purchased a book case from a place not too far from my duplex. The owner, an ex-TCU football player went out to load the case in my CRV. He looked and said, "let me just put it in my truck and bring it to your place." The Kerry signs on my vehicle were obvious. As he was leaving, I noticed a "W" sticker on his truck. Still we shook hands and and the transaction ended in a friendly manner.

This is how the "process" should work.

The ZEALOTS.

I've heard the Republican thug scarying away black peopole in Florida, but Kerry thugs? Bad Zealot, Bad.

It seems to me, after re-reading the entirety of this topic that the topic itself has been marginalized and made impotent but continual rewriting of the definition of the word Zealot. How Clintonesque.

Perhaps we can get some intelligent conversation on the subject if we simply acknowledge the fact that Zealots exist on both sides and Zealots who move beyond peaceful protest and debate to assault and criminal activity are simply wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

In 1992, the Young Republicans in my former neck of the woods were getting younger brothers and sisters to steal or destroy yard signs and billboards for both Perot and Clinton.

The following election year, a group of local Democrats were picketing and boycotting my Employer, a life-long Democrat, because he dared to support the Republican candidate for Congress. When that intimidation did not work, my employers property was vandalized. Yard signs were destroyed and the word Traitor was spray painted on the front of the store.

In 1996, while enjoying a few drinks with friends after our Young Republicans meeting we were approached by a group of construction workers who took issue with our politics. They were obnoxious, but not violent. However, that did not stop several Young Reps from throwing the first punches that resulted in a fairly large brawl inside, then outside the bar.

Over the top political Zealots belong to every belief, and every party. If one cannot see the Zealots in ones own party then perhaps one should consider consulting a mirror. I do not mean this as a slight or insult towards anyone, just simply a wake up call. Seeing Extremist with ease in the opposition while failing to see extremism on one's own side would suggest that one is an extremist, or Zealot if you prefer of that persuasion oneself.

The interesting thing about Colorado, is that it as a state has been 'californicated.' Yes it is more then a song. Californication is caused by California's leaving California looking to escape high taxes, high cost of living, and very little job opportunity. With these California's come the democrat ideals. So for the first time in a while Colorado, a Republican state, is losing its grip on being a strong state. I see the Kerry/Edwards signs being trashed more then Anti-democrat, but the 'good ol' boys' last stand against californication.

This argument may be seen as a motion to avoid seeing the political Zealots belong to the Republican party. But that is not my intent. First off signs in yards being...anything...is nothing more then silly people doing crazy things. They are signs, the cost nickels and dimes to make, and as BoF has shown, you can make your own. So signs stolens, defecated, or torn in peoples yard are sill.

The telephone call to the woman about her husband, this is desperation. And I believe the desperation in Colorado stems from californication. Now what confuses me is that I can see a Republican calling to say, "if you vote for Kerry, your husband will live." Trying to annoy the woman into voting for Bush out of disgust for the Kerry Camps. call. But I can see a democrat with a list of dead and causalities in Iraq, or a list of troops in Iraq calling people and saying, "if you want your husband to live you will vote for Kerry." Using fear and more.

I remember being at by Grandparents house and taking a call from 'Al Gore' about prescription drugs for seniors and Bush's plan will cause more deaths within their community. Using fear.

I am saying that both sides are capable and have used Zealot tactics to win votes. However, it is the zealots that have taken these tactics to the extreme. More then signs being torn, but shootings, break-ins, destroying equipment, and itimitating voters as they go to vote early.

yehosuhu,

You are simply missing the point.

Regardless of the severity of the vandalism, it is still an attempt to silence one's else's Constitutional freedom of speech, or if you will, freedom of expression. With that said, I fully expect someone, (not you yehoshua) with limited Constitutional perspective, to try to tell us the 1st Amendment prevents Congress, not "private" vandals, from abridging freedom of speech.

What may have started and continues as "petty" vandalism may now (that early voting has started) extend itself to "intimidating" potential voters. Still were dealing with the same mindset. So, the "tactics" you speak of, however great or minor, are not intended to "win" votes, but to suppress freedom of expression and the right to vote. The "tactics" are a totally negative phenomenon .

In general the ripping up of, defecating on, or tearing up of signs on both sides is of greater cumulative importance than more severe isolated incidents. There is also an intimidation factor in all this. Last week someone threw an egg at my Kerry/Edwards sign. Part of it landed in front of the sign and the rest went over or slightly to the side and landed on my Bush supporter neighbor's side of the duplex porch. Neither of us has cleaned it up yet. From the angle the "missile" took there's little doubt about it's target.

The larger issue is the cherished ideal of freedom of expression.

BTW: Yard signs cost $5.00, not pennies, at Tarrent County Democratic headquarters. The "Bush 04" sticker someone put on my window probably cost that someone at least a couple of bucks.

Edited foir clarity.

It's a five dollar sign. Can we tell college pranks that i did with no political motives? But not even once did I consider breaking into anything and stealing or destroying the entire place.

I guess the point I miss (and I miss this with every protest) is that I don't think signs mean anything. I don't understand expressing or advertising political views on the side of a house or the back of a car. So if someone was to destroy a five dollar sign that I happened to purchase (by the way $5.00 goes towards the Camp. the sign is only pennies to make. When you buy a sign or sticker you are supporting the Camp.) I would be happy that they were expressing their Constitutional freedoms. Then I would report any vandalism. In the article that I shown, the police caught the guy in Colorado stealing the signs. I agree the guy (or girl) should be held for vandalism (even for $5.00)

The tactics I was speaking of are that of fear. And yes Bush and Kerry use fear to win votes. The Zealots use fear to shy away from voting. Or as your early examples showed, to shy away from abortions.

Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t, as Bush would say “denigrate,” the use of yard signs or bumper stickers.



Whoa hoss!!! Who are they? Are you saying vandals are exercising their Constitutional freedoms by destroying a sign or sticker on someone else’s personal property?



I did mention the Phineas Priesthood and the Army of God early in this thread, but in reviewing it, I don’t think I’ve used the word abortion.

Stealing, defacing or destroying someone elses yard sign generally requires that you first trespass on someones property and definitely requires that you appropriate someone else's property for your own desires.

It is called trespassing and either thief or vandalism. Both are crimes, and both instill fear. How do you think the elderly widow down the block feels when she goes to get the paper in the morning and finds here Kerry/Edwards or her 10 commandments yard signs torn to shreds on her porch? Safe, is surly not the answer.



The first story I ever remember reading regarding a break in as well as theft and vandalism regarding a political office was done by the Republicans in a little incident we call Watergate. Again, extreme tactics happen on both sides.





You don't understand why people would use yard signs or bumper stickers to express their point of view. And because of this, you seem to imply that it is OK (even a "constitutional freedom") for someone to do as they will with someone else's property.

Most Americans do not understand the reason some people spend hours on places like America's Debate, debating politics. They find it silly, and pointless, especially when they consider the fact that very few debaters ever change their opinions as a result.

So, based on your reasoning in this topic, if people from a political camp devised a virus that they could direct at anyone who posted opposing views on the America's debate website and that virus was designed to destroy that posters ability to post on the website that would be ok? After all, it doesn't cost anything to use America's Debate (Unless you choose to Sponsor the site which I highly recommend everyone does Sponsor AD Today). They would be exercising their "Constitutional Rights" though possibly subject to minor vandalism charges right? Or are they really working tirelessly to oppress the views of all those that oppose their thinking and thus take away the "constitutional rights" of others? Are they not actively seeking to strip the right of free speech from those they attack?

You suggest that the actions of these criminals that attack yard signs are merely mild acts of vandalism and that these people in fact deserve respect for "expressing their Constitutional freedoms". So, Then I assume if I appeared at your home late one night and spray painted "Free Tibet" across the front of your house you would want me prosecuted for vandalism but would pat me on the back for "expressing [my] Constitutional freedoms". Somehow I doubt that.

Want to counter a yard sign? Find a neighbor who is for the other candidate/ position and give them the opposing yard sign.

Using criminal acts for the purpose of "expressing [your] Constitutional freedoms" does not make you a freedom fighter, it makes you a criminal. And as someone who has been a victim of several crimes in my lifetime I can tell you with certainty that even the smallest crime ruins the quality of life for the victim and shakes there confidence in their personal security. In other words, their Pursuit of Happiness is directly attacked. Crimes, even those "sill[y]" crimes have very negative effects on innocent people.

It is simply selfish, if not childish to think that it is OK to take, deface or destroy something, even something as insignificant as a yard sign, just because you don't like it, and don't see any value in it. The own obviously does, or they would not have bothered to put it in their yard.

She has out lived her husband by how long, and does not remember that ever election no matter whose sign is in the front yard, it gets torn to shreds? Sometimes you can't help people. They only tore the sign, they didn't break into her house. SECOND there are property easements in front yard that allow anyone to stand within the easement. Why do you think houses are 20 ft away from the street?

NOTE: Statement after "I would be happy that they were expressing their Constitutional freedoms," claims "Then I would report any vandalism. In the article that I shown, the police caught the guy in Colorado stealing the signs. I agree the guy (or girl) should be held for vandalism (even for $5.00)"

MEANING: Do whatever you want to express your freedoms (vandalism, virus, etc.) then be held accountable for your actions.

You can doubt all you want. It is what I do. Like for example. In Pasadena, CA we had a problem with anti-SUV people running around hitting bumpers of SUVs with bats and slashing tires (Fight Club moves) WHY? Because they didn't think it was aappropriateto ddestroythe eenvironment I give the kudos for their convictions, then damn their actions. That is the way it works in my head.

CHILDISH. I am told with you. It is childish to destroy the yard sign and childish to egg the yard sign, am afraid for my life that someone did it? No. Because they are only children, or adults acting like children. It is also childish to make signs reminding yourself and other around you where you stand, but that is for another thread. The point is that I am not aafraidof childish vandalism, should I be?

If I weren't reading this with my own two eyes, I wouldn't believe it. How is the widow outliving her husband even remotely relevant to this thread? Yehoshua, if you are lucky you will live to be an old man. Then you might have a little clearer perception of what the hypothetical elderly widow is feeling. As we get older we learn that we're not invincible. The elderly persons who endure this type vandalism do get feelings of being violated. As the saying goes, you need to "walk in someone else’s moccasins" once in a while.

It's strange you mention easements. Republican signs I see, as I drive around, tend to be closer to the street while Democratic signs tend to be closer to the house. My sign is within ten feet of the door.

Another thing you are forgetting, yehoshua, is that elections are as much about process as they are about results. Bumper stickers and yard signs are a part of that process or if you will, tradition.



I have heard similar arguments in connection with violating unjust laws. It's called non-violent passive resistance. Some of its practitioners have included Jesus, Tolstoy, Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The premise of non-violent passive resistance is that you violate an unjust law and are willing to accept whatever punishment is meted out for violating that law.

While I find laws denying citizens' civil rights, (like being denied access to public accomodations)unjujst, I find nothing unjust about laws forbidding vandalism. CASE DISMISSED!!!

Non-Violent Passive Resistance Link



Again, laws forbidding vandalism are not unjust. You seem to be saying that the ends justify the means. Actually you are advocating lawlessness.




I believe in making punishments fit the crime. If indeed the people who are destroying the signs are juveniles, they should be sentenced to something like mowing the grass or raking leaves in the victim's yard.

If the perpetrator is an adult, then possible criminal indictment under civil rights statutes might be appropriate.

Edited to add link.

There are Easements on SOME property lines, not all. Why shouldn't the woman be concerned? He neighborhood was peaceful, never a problem, now people willingly sneak into her yard to destroy and steal her belongings. Are the actions of some that cause others to live in fear OK simply because they are political in nature? There are many who once lived under various tyrannical dictators who would disagree with that.





OK, so then should we not condemn ELF or PETA for fire-bombing animal research facilities? That would be a act of free speech right? Though they should be prosecuted for the act, the idea that we should not condemn the act itself is simply wrong to me. Failure to condemn criminals for criminal acts, regardless of the reason for the act does nothing but promote more criminal acts like this.

I would prefer that people have the guts to knock on my door and debate my politics in reference to my yard sign (as seen in my profile) rather then make a cowardly assault on my right to free speech by trespassing on and stealing or destroying my property.



It is not childish to put out a yard sign. It is a show of support for the candidate or position. It is an act of courage to tell all around you where you stand. It is quite similar to putting a yellow ribbon out for soldiers, flying an American Flag, or putting a NRA bumper sticker on your car. It is an act of free speech, done to support and promote what you believe in. The Cavalier way these sorts of attacks on property and constitutional rights of others are dismissed is frightening to me. Is this the mindset of our youth? If so, I fear we are doomed, because sooner or later, those repeatedly violated by these criminal acts will fight back, possibly violently. It is not so long ago that you could shoot trespassers, and in some areas of the country you still can.

Why does it seem to be such a foreign concept to respect the rights and property of others? Why do the feelings of these criminals carry more importance then the feelings of those who own the property?

UPDATE:
Fraud, intimidation claims raise tension

New Florida vote scandal feared

Partisan tension in SBC

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a.../harris_assault

While i think Harris is scum, the actions of this J.O. are evil.

Hopefully during his prison time he gets an opportunity to express his sexuality and his feminine side.
There is no excuse for the trashing of campaign offices or the destruction of signs in people's yards.
Any of these attempts at intimidation deserve to be dealt with in harsh terms.
but this guy scrapes out a whole new low point of gravity in the gutterslime.

For those of you who think that nothing happens to sign stealers and destroyers, here is one that has been arrested. Emotions fly high in zealots who feel that removing a sign will change the vote. It is odd how people think if you remove the signs you will stop people from voting.

Also note this about the article: Yeah my argument about the right of way was false. You can get in trouble for picking it up in the right of way. Odd how BoF says Kerry supports place there closer to the house, is it possible that most Kerry supports and myself believed this urban myth?

I don't understand the point you are making. Please provide some clarificaton. Bush will probably carry Texas by 55-60 percent. Where the yardsigns were placed, was a matter of observation. Why is it that way? I don't really know, but Karl Rove has reportedly done some researh how best to display a yardsign. Perhaps Bush supporters, comfortably in the majority, don't worry as much about having signs stolen as Democrats.

I don't think the "urban myth," whatever it is, exists in Texas.

Oh this one is a good Zealot:
I am under the impression that this guy has other problems. Could it be the break up or the fact that she was leaving him for Kerry? You know when I want to get back at my wife, I tell here I am voting for Kerry. I usually get more then a knife. Just Kidding, I already voted.