Political Yard Sign Wars Wage as Election Nears 248
gollum123 writes "Yahoo has a story on how tension among bitterly divided voters is translating into a barrage of attacks on political targets that can't talk back - yard signs. Campaign signs depicting support for either President Bush (news - web sites) or Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) are being burned, chopped down, spray-painted and commonly, stolen away in the dark of night. Though sign shenanigans are common in election years, some Republican leaders are calling this year's activity unprecedented. Democratic leaders say attacks are so rampant that supporters should take their yard signs inside at night to protect them. Has anyone on /. had such an experience."
Even the little candidates can play... (Score:2, Informative)
A couple of big 4x8 BC04 signs have been spray-painted with "LIARS" and "1000 DEAD" and they're now covering them with plastic wrap hoping the spray painters will be foiled (sorry) and the signs protected.
More commonly, Kerry signs are seen to metamorphose into BC signs overnight.
--
Tom Barringer
Candidate for State Representative in Derry, NH
www.ThatTallGuy.net
Re: I Never Saw... (Score:3, Informative)
> No president has been hated more since Lincoln, it would seem.
Johnson? Nixon? Reagan? Clinton?
Few Bush signs in Portland. Read the books. (Score:5, Informative)
In Portland, Oregon, a friend mentioned that, before the last election, there were no signs in the yards in the wealthy area where he lives. Now there are seven Kerry/Edwards signs in the yards around his. There are no Bush signs.
I began looking for Bush signs as I drive around my area. I've seen none. There is at least one Kerry sign on each block, usually more.
I've heard that there are plenty of Bush signs in the rural areas of the state.
Many people in the U.S. know very, very little about the activities in their government. There are many very angry people. The ignorant and the angry are easily manipulated. To them, for example, bombing for democracy makes sense.
During the Clinton years, I read the books that were published about him. They said he was having sex with slutty women. They tried to find something wrong with his small losing investment called Whitewater. They said he may have, at some time during his being governor of Arkansas, associated with people who later turned out to be involved in questionable activities. I found the books interesting, but a little lame.
Now I've read the books [futurepower.org] about Bush. It's amazing. The information about Bush is about severe corruption of government.
The negative information about George W. Bush seems endless. Just when I think I know 10% of the corruption, I find more detail that shows I know less than 1% of it. For example, George W. Bush's brother was shown in a lawsuit deposition on 20/20 [go.com] casually talking about his prostitutes and his use of government influence to make money. This is Neil Bush talking about himself.
George H.W. Bush was involved in the weapons business with a brother of Osama bin Laden. See House of Bush, House of Saud: The secret relationship between the world's two most powerful dynasties by Craig Unger, 2004, Scribner, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's [powells.com] Barnes & Noble [barnesandnoble.com] Amazon [amazon.com]
Most media exists to make money. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one policy over another. It's necessary to read books.
George Soros says, "President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values." [georgesoros.com] If Dole had been elected instead of Clinton, the U.S. would have had sensible leadership. This election is different. It is not a matter of which candidate you like. If you vote for Bush, you are poorly informed. This is not a claim that Kerry and Edwards are perfect. They represent, at minimum, a needed change.
--
Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics. [futurepower.org]
Re:Easy solution (Score:2, Informative)
After my Kerry sign was vandalized three nights in a row and then finally stolen, I decided to do something about protecting its replacement. Enter the Scarecrow [scatmat.com].
It's a motion-activated sprinkler. Anyone who comes near my sign now gets blasted with water. It's hilarious.
Re:You have no credibility (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton answered the Sudan point. At the time, the offer did not appear credible, or at least sufficiently credible to pay whatever price the Sudanese were asking. BTW, Clinton said that the cruise missile attack on Afghanistan was the most he felt he could get away with, at the time. Even so, he was accused of wagging the dog.
As for sources for my facts, I made nothing up.
a: NPR interview with CIA people.
b: OK, this is my opinion, but the secrecy of the current administration is well reported in the news.
c: Another NPR interview.
d: Partly logical extraction, partly current news about generals' estimates of required troop strength, partly pre-war comments by a friend in the Guard about required troop strength AND duration estimates.
I'm sorry that I use NPR and BBC as my primary news sources. But I don't plan on changing to Fox News. From what I see and hear, in the news and on sites like Slashdot, the Left in the US might well be slightly right of Center in the rest of the world. I see no need to add further Rightward bias to my sources.
rabid pro-lifers (Score:4, Informative)
It's pretty despicable when people engage their kids in such activities. Unfortunately, you see a lot of this activity among the rabid pro-life crowd: they bring their kids out front of abortion clinics holding up signs with pictures of dead fetuses. There seems to a recurring theme of partisians using children as political tools [bsalert.com].
Re:Identity Crisis (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.
There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:
Mike Badnarik [badnarik.org] - Libertarian [lp.org]
David Cobb [votecobb.org] - Green [gp.org]
Ralph Nader [votenader.com] - Independent
Mike Peroutka [peroutka2004.com] - Constitution [constitutionparty.com]
In addition, Roger Calero [themilitant.com], the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.
Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:
(from ballot-access.org):
Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.
Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.
Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.
Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
More details can be found at ballot-access.org [ballot-access.org]
And a list of political parties in the United States [wordiq.com] is available as well.
seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.
The Libertarian Party [lp.org] is.