OMG! OMG! OMG!

[in_cog_ni_to]

I posted a thread last week about how dismayed I was to see a neighbor with a yard sign that reads...

"ONE NATION UNDER G-D
PLEASE VOTE PRO-LIFE"

Guess what??? THEIR ENTIRE YARD WAS TOILET PAPERED LAST NIGHT!!!!
THEIR TREES, BUSHES, MAILBOX AND PORCH! Toilet paper EVERYWHERE! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I'm not the ONLY one to find that sign offensive! I'm anxious to see if the sign goes down now. Will the idiots be able to connect the dots? THAT house was the ONLY one that was papered. :evilgrin:

WooHoo! :bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce:

[Warpy]

1. Do they have any teenagers in the house?

That would be more of an indication of why they got hit than that stupid sign is.

After all, this is America, and stupid people have a legal right to be completely wrong.

(I do understand your glee, though. Good work, TP crew)

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. NOPE! No kids!

I've NEVER seen kids there and I drive by that house many times a day. It HAD to be the yard sign. :7

[Roccia e Segale]

53. Well I hope

the cops are able to catch these vandals.......

Politics is not an excuse for breaking the law....if someone wants to hang a sign on their property then they should be able to. Bottom line.

[MADem]

2. They may change their sign...

...to PLEASE VOTE PRO LIFE, except for those little bastards who papered my house!

Do you think it was definitively a protest against their sign, or simply high school post football/ pre Halloween enthusiasm?

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Pro-life only refers to

the period between conception & birth.

Let's have a mandatory death penalty for young hoodlums with toilet paper.

[demnan]

3. Well

I think they have a right to their views without being taunted. I'd rather try to pursuade them, than intimidate them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. There's no persuading anyone who would

put THAT sign in their yard. :hi:

[vivalarev]

6. Oh yeah...

well i think everyone else has the right to taunt them

[tabasco]

7. They have the same right to free speech that we enjoy.

I might not agree with their views but I will fight for their right to express them.

I would not be happy if my Veteran For Kerry yard sign were TP'd.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. I would say

that you are just LUCKY that your sign is even still in your yard. THIS IS WAR! We are playing by THEIR rules now. They deserve everything they get...they asked for it for 8 YEARS during the Clinton presidency. It's payback time. We're only following THEIR lead. :hi:

[coreystone]

50. I agree! None of us would be pleased if some "freeper" did the same..

to any of our private property.

[ArkDem]

9. This is great! It show that the country's Democrats are

finally ready to fight. I just hope that the toliet paper corporation bigwigs will not make a profit off of this movement and contribute more to the repukes.

[PATRICK]

10. Put a more modest sign on your yard

-though it is kind of late for that- with something like "Let sanity rule" or "Tolerance" or just "Have a nice day".

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. I can't put ANY sign in my yard.

I live in a condo complex and it's against the covenants. :grr:

[PA Democrat]

11. My wing-nut neighbors have a Bush signs all over their house

and all types of "pro-life" bumper stickers on their van, including one that says "you can't be both pro-abortion and Catholic".

My 15-year-old son made a sign for our house that says:

"You can't be both pro-life and pro-war"

[Carolina]

29. love your son's sign

I have seen that shame shit about pro-abortion and Catholic, and I wanted to make one about Catholic Priests who are rapists, but your son's idea is MUCH BETTER!:hi:

[Longhorn]

37. Good for your son!

:toast:

[tom_paine]

13. Well, as a homeowner I cannot condone the toilet papering

of someone's house.

At least it wans't seriously vandalized, however fucked up the inhabitants are (if the Old American Republic is to continue, we must return to the old ways of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it").

Nope, not cool.

[ronnykmarshall]

14. I agree ...

After this debate W's gonna need some TP. ALOT of it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Toilet papering is a non-violent, non destructive

way to send a message. Pretty innocent, actually. At least their sign wasn't stolen or their car keyed.....you know, the way repukes deal with a differing POV. I'm a homeowner too...my opinion just differs from yours on this one. I thought it was funny as hell. I have to drive by that friggin' sign about 8 times a day. It pisses me off every time I see it. A little Toilet Paper "wiped" the frown off my face. :hi:

[Silverhair]

122. It is destructive.

You take away from them the effort and time that it requires to clean it up. They could have used that for something else.

Basically, you don't respect freedom of speech and seem to be willing to use force to stop speech with which you disagree.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

35. I agree...not cool at all.

And I rebuke the poster who started this thread who thinks it IS cool.

Some sickos out there,for sure.

[AmerDem]

17. LOL

funny stuff.Thanks for the morning laugh!:toast:

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. My pleasure!

It MADE my day!

[Love Bug]

19. Geez, now they'll just go to church on Sunday

and tell everyone how PERSECUTED they are for standing up for their principles.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Let 'em!

I thought they already were persecuted?

That LIBERAL media. Those nasty Democrats who take THEIR hard earned money. Those lazy LIBERALS who depend on THEIR money to support them. Those LIBERALS who have abortions and kill babies. THEIR corporations were taxed to death and heavily regulated by those awful LIBERALS. Their whole life is one big persecution. Everyone picks on the poor little freepers. That's nothing new. Screw 'em! :eyes:

[Mike Daniels]

21. Wow. And you all claim to be superior to the general population

I make no bones that I'm non-partisan and moderate. And I'm sorry but I personally think that any group who thinks it's great that someone had their home vandalized because of a stupid sign has no business putting themselves as morally and intelletually superior to anyone.

This is something I would to expect to see on Free Republic.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. It's TOILET PAPER!

GEEZUSKRIST. You sound as if their house was burned to the ground. It's just toilet paper and I think it's funny as hell that they are covered in it.

I don't recall ever saying "I" was superior to anyone.....you must have me confused with someone else.

[theboss]

26. I've had my house egged before

My parents are teachers so they've pissed off a few students over the years. Twice, our house has been egged or toilet papered. Yes, it's just some egg yolks that wash off in a few minutes, but it still feels like a real violation.

I don't quite see the connection as to why their political beliefs means that they have the right to be attacked.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Eggs can RUIN things.

They can stain and do damage. Especially to car finishes if not washed off soon enough...toilet paper does not cause any damage, it's just messy. Their anti-choice sign is DISGUSTING to me. They have no right to tell me what to do with my body. Who the hell do they think they are? MY body is MY body and their sign insinuates that it's NOT. Mepublicans deserve everything they get. They don't hold back, why should pro-choice/Democrats? It's their game. Now we're just playing it with them.

[Yupster]

55. So put up your own sign

You have some kind of an idea that speakers of political speech should be attacked if you disagree with it?

You're posting on the wrong message board.

[Yupster]

54. Agree theboss

I was a teacher too, and had the same thing happen, but even that's not as bad as this was.

As a teacher you figure it's just some disgruntled kids, but even then --- there's a sense of being violated. You look around at people for a while and worry if something might come next.

That was bad enough, but I bet this family is feeling much more violated.

[Yupster]

52. It's not the toilet paper incognito

that's not the point.

It's an attack on these people's property for political reasons.

This can be a very frightening experience for a family. They have no idea what will come next. Will it be eggs thrown at their home? broken windows? Slogans paintd on their garage? Being laughed at and taunted? Or worse?

When people feel violated in their own home, it can be very traumatic, especially if they're elderly. It makes people live in fear.

This was a very uncool thing to do, and something should be done to repair the damage done.

[AmerDem]

114. It's very funny

and very benign. This other poster should jump off the soap box. I'de prefer toilet paper in a tree then the FBI showing up at everyones doorstep!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

117. Get over your righteousness..it was toilet paper

[theboss]

22. I'm glad you are not my neighbor

I have neighbors I like and neighbors I don't particularly like. But if any of them had their homes vandalized, I would be helping them clean up as soon as I found out.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. I'm glad your not my neighbor too. n/t

[BlueJazz]

25. Vandalized!!!!

Christ...putting toilet paper on someones yard can hardly be classified as vandalism.
When Freepers "Vandalize", they Key your Car, smash your tail-light, tear down your mailbox/sign/fence/yard-light or any of ten other things.

Putting toilet paper on someones lawn is vandelism??... Bullshit..

[in_cog_ni_to]

28. Ditto that

bullshit. :) :hi:

[sffreeways]

44. Why are you characterizing it

as vandalism ? It's not vandalism, that term carries an image of damaged property and toilet paper doesn't rise to the level of destruction the word vandalism describes.

I think you're taking the incident a bit too seriously. This poster obviously wouldn't take pleasure in seeing a neighbors house vandalized. It's the harmlessness of the act that makes the story entertaining.

:eyes:

[Eric J in MN]

30. I don't care the sign, but I don't support vandalism (nt)

nt

[TrogL]

31. ...and you had nothing to do with it

Sure.....I believe you. Hehe.

[in_cog_ni_to]

32. No, I was at a fundraiser

for my Congressman "to be" and home watching the debate. Can't say the thought hadn't crossed my mind though. ;)

[Artemis Bunyon]

33. Man, do I EVER get annoyed at posts like this.

OMG! OMG! OMG!

Could you try to seem a LITTLE less hysterical please?

Not just one OMG!, but THREE of them!

And all in the title, no less.

Sheesh.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. Then why the HELL did you click on it?

Sheesh!

[Artemis Bunyon]

36. OMG! Because it's so fricking annoying! OMG! OMG!

Did I mention OMG?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

38. Yes, but you fogote Woohoo. As in WooHoo!! WooHoo !!

OMG, OMFG, Woohoo Woohoo.

they TPed the neigbors house.

wooh -fuckin- hoo.

[Artemis Bunyon]

40. LOL!

Aye, s'truth.

[0007]

39. I loved it! and I love it when you hate.

OMG! OMG!! OMG!!!

[Momma Mia]

41. Um ...

And this immature high school behavior helps Kerry, exactly, how???

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Momma Mia]

49. You are correct ...

Age has nothing to do with my politics, was poor wording on my part.

It does, however, have everything to do with the way I think and behave.

I still think this entire thread, and your reaction to it is rather childish ... and YES, I did click on it and read it when I could have simply gone on to the next one, but didn't.

Anyway, 0007, I do apologize for telling you to "grow up!" That wasn't very nice of me, I must admit.

Now, if you'll just take back telling me to "jagoff"we can get on with it!

P.S. I have belonged to DU since July, read almost daily, but seldom post. My hubby and I are retired and spend time traveling between NC and Florida, are always having company, and doesn't leave me much time to post!

Wish that I could, but can't.

[AmerDem]

115. Man, do I ever get annoyed at posters like you!

Here we have a poster finding fault in a longtime harmless prank against someone who supports a fascist administration!

To me your comment is shit! WHOOO FUCKING HOOOO

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. TPing a house is childish.

You don't further your position or make your side look good by trashing someone's house, even if it's only toilet paper. People in this country have a right to have and express annoying, stupid, even offensive opinions without being hassled. Some years ago the ACLU defended the right of a bunch of neo-Nazis to march in a parade in Skokie, IL, and got a lot of grief for it, but they did the right thing. And I would actively defend the right of my neighbor to display that sign -- any sign -- even though I don't agree with their position. My America isn't about harassing people for their political beliefs. I thought we liberals were supposed to be against that.

[Dorian Gray]

47. Good post, ocelot...

And I agree. I think it's immature to T-P a house, particularly when you don't like a sign that's out in the yard. I've never felt the desire to do that, no matter how much people have personally pissed me off. They do have the freedom to express their desires in this country, and though I disagree with the sign, I would never do anything to inconvience the people for having it up in the first place.

[Yupster]

60. Agree Ocelot

It used to be a liberal tenet that "I disagree with your view vehemently, but I will fight to the death for you to have the right to express it."

I guess the times they are a changin.

[Liberal_Dog]

45. I Had My Home Paint-Balled

Fortunately, I was able to wash it off with my water hose.

So, I generally take a pretty dim view of vandalism.

[Yupster]

51. Sorry -- I'm against you

First, I think they have every right to the political viewpoint expressed by their sign.

Second, I think they have every right to express their view with a sign on their own property.

Third, I think it is horrible that people should be singled out for abuse because they expressed a political view. This may seem funny to you and others, but it may be very scary to them. They probably didn't expect people to come on their property and do stuff to their property because of their views. They may be very scared right now worrying what might come next.

Fourth, I find your comment and apparent glee much more troubling than their sign. Maybe you weren't like the sturmabteilung who threw rocks through the Jewish store windows, but you were more like the citizens who stood by and laughed while they did it.

My advice. Help your neighbors clean up their property and tell them that the majority of people in the neighborhood do not support intimidation like they were subjected to. You like most people support their right to express their views even if you don't agree with them.

I hope they keep their sign up.

What will it say about us all if they take it down?

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. The TP was down within hours of this post.

Sorry, but I would never help those people clean that up. I didn't do it. It's not MY anti-choice sign that spurred it and I disagree with the sentiment of the sign. It pisses me off.

As for your remark about laughing at the Jews who had rocks thrown through their windows...I'M INSULTED and OUTRAGED! My husband and son are Jewish and your remark was uncalled for. Just hateful.

[Blecht]

59. You should educate yourself

About why throwing rocks through a Jew's window is wrong.

It's not because the target was a Jew -- it's because the target was chosen because he was a Jew.

If, as you believe, your neighbor was targeted because he/she is an anti-choice conservative, then what happened is EXACTLY the same type of attack.

If you don't understand this, enroll in a couple of classes at your local community college.

[Robbien]

71. This neighbor was not targeted

because he/she is an anti-choice conservative. The neighbor was targeted because they advertised their anti-choice and their religion on their front lawn. If they had put a Bush/Cheney sign on the lawn nothing would have probably happened to them. But they put out a religious/anti-women's rights advertisement. That made it a public situation. And someone in the public reacted.

It was the advertisement by the neighbor which instigated a reaction. All advertisements instigate a reaction. The neighbor just received a reaction they didn't expect.

[Radius]

84. Thought != Action

Under no circumstances is trespassing onto someones property correct because you do not agree with their beliefs.

It is illegal, and goes against everyones right to express a political opinion without being PHYSICALLY attacked.

If it was your pro choice sign and your house you would be rightfully pissed.

This is unacceptable behavior.

[Robbien]

94. If a person put a public advertisement on their lawn

whether it was for pro-choice, for a certain religion, for Nazis, for duck hunting, then that person is open for public reaction. Putting up an advertisement calls for a public reaction.

And there are many people in this world who react strongly. So if a person does not want strong reactions, they should not advertise their personal beliefs on their front lawn. It is their choice. These people advertised for a reaction and got a reaction they did not like.

[Radius]

108. So if you put up a sign

that says re defeat bush and someone fucks with your house/car it is justified?

Thought and speech are protected. You have plenty of legal recourses. Put up a sign of your own, see if there is a sign ordinance, etc.

It is wrong to take action against someone for a political belief. It is also illegal. This is really a cut and dried issue.

[Robbien]

110. I am not saying all reactions to advertisements are justified

I am just saying if you advertise, expect reactions. That is my point. Your point of all reactions not always being legal, is also true. But advertisements will result in reactions, legal and non-legal.

[Radius]

112. Slippery slope

Messing with people for expressing an idea is a bad precedent to set..

There are plenty of legal reactions. The illegal ones can have their own reactions, including, jail, personal injury, or death.

Fucking with people on their property after dark is dangerous, people get killed that way.

The only logical response is one that foes not break the law or physically punish someone for their opinion.

[Robbien]

120. Illegal reactions to advertisements should have

serious consequences. Definitely. But putting up an advertisement calling for reactions will get reactions. Some people who are willing to risk the consequences will react illegally.

Putting up an advertisement on social and religious beliefs and expecting everyone to act within the law is naive. Social and religious beliefs are dearly held by most. Someone who gets in other's faces with an advertisement which may go against someone else's social and religious beliefs should expect strong reactions.

Illegal reactions shouldn't happen, but they will.

[Yupster]

62. Two things

If you have Jews in your family, I would think you'd be a little more caring about neighbors who are in the minority, be they by religion, race, sexual orientation or political belief. Think man.

Second, their sign did not spur the TP'ing. Their sign should not have caused anything being done to them. A bunch of morons probably combined with a few six-packs is what spurred their TP'ing. Put the blame where it belongs.

That family was blameless. They have every right to express their views.

[mitchtv]

64. I find it hard tofeel sorry for that Ilk

They pollute the view with their "opinions". As they say, "your right to bad taste ends at my line of vision". The freeper is reaping what he sowed

[Radius]

66. By that logic

If the freeper let out his 3 German shepherds while calling the police the criminals would reap what they sowed? He would be within his rights to hold someone at gunpoint for trespass and vandalism. Any miscommunication by the person at the other end of the gun could result in a bad situation.

Fucking around with people and their property is inherently dangerous. People get hurt doing stupid shit like that.

Never mind the fact that messing with someone because of a political sign goes against free speech and if the situation was reversed it would make you really mad.

[mitchtv]

69. I agree they would reap the whirlwind

yes, fucking around would be dangerous,and it is stupid. I would still stand there point my finger at them, and laugh at them.I am afraid to put a K/E bumper sticker on my car , cause of freepbehavior.

[Radius]

73. That is sad

I live in a small town and commute into a large city and have had no problems with mine.

People should be able to express their opinion without fear of physical attack.

[Blecht]

56. Thanks for filling out a RW straw man

I didn't think people like you -- "liberals" who want to punish their conservative neighbors -- really existed.

Someone who cheers on vandalism of a neighbors house for their political beliefs should hop in a time machine to 1930s Germany.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Blecht]

63. Yes, I could be more obnoxious

But I won't be.

[ReadTomPaine]

68. The Nazi analogy doesn't work.

Putting aside the issue mentioned at the head of this thread, your analogy is flawed. If there were more liberal progressives who fought the Nazis using force against force, there wouldn't have been a Nazi party, as they wouldn't have been able to intimidate anyone.

Do you also have a dim view of union members who created and defended their rights with bats and fists, even when Pinkerton style union busters were maiming and disabling them to suppress these movements?

Again, this is not related to the sign issue mentioned above, only to point out that force is often required to retain one's rights in a society that takes a turn towards authoritarianism.

RTP

[Radius]

70. Slippery slope

The person whose sign drew the attack could also counter with force.
He could call the police, press charges, sue for damages, and hold the responsible parties at gunpoint until the police arrive.

Don't complicate it. Someone comitted a crime in response to a sign. If it was your kerry sign that got your house fucked with you would be PISSED. I would.

Thought!= Action.

[ReadTomPaine]

72. I wasn't talking about the sign. I was talking about the Nazi analogy.

I mentioned this twice in that post.

RTP

[Radius]

75. OK

may have have misread. As long as you agree action against someone for their political opinion is wrong. As is taking pleasure in their misfortune.

If it was your place and your Kerry sign you would be rightfully pissed.

[ReadTomPaine]

78. "I may not believe what you have to say,

...but I will fight and die for your right to say it"

Absolutely.

RTP

[Radius]

85. We're on the same page(NT)

[Blecht]

74. Nice post

But as you write, it doesn't apply to this situation.

Just as your union analogy, or the anti-Nazi analogy doesn't work, either.

The anti-choice person, at least at this time, isn't in a position of real power compared the rest of us. So TP-ing that person's house isn't an attack on an unjust oppressor. No matter what the media may tell us, the anti-choice crowd is a minority, and deserves our protection, no matter how much we may despise their agenda.

[ReadTomPaine]

77. They are perfectly appropriate to your response...

... as your post doesn't apply to the sign situation either.

RTP

[Blecht]

79. I disagree

Cheering and laughing while the member of a minority gets attacked -- that can describe both situations.

It's very broad, but it fits.

[ReadTomPaine]

81. Fair enough. I disagree also...

... but I can accept that it can be seen in such terms!

RTP

[Blecht]

87. Now it's time for me to go back to my regular job here ...

Bumping nostamj's toon posts. :)

Getting involved in this type of discussion is not my favorite thing to do here, but it is nice to see somebody bringing up a bit of union history. Too many people have forgotten how hard the battle was to win workers' rights. Now many just sit back and watch as the current group of fascist wannabees try to strip everything away ...

[in_cog_ni_to]

95. Nothing like the anti-choice wants to do with women's rights though.

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

93. If the chimp is reSelected in this election

you had better believe the anti-choice will be in "real power"...we are MONTHS away from that happening. The fundies are foaming at the mouth as we type...just waiting to appoint their RW ANTI-CHOICE judges to the SCOTUS. Those people are dangerous and want to undo everything women have ever fought for and I, for one, being a female, am not willing to let them do it.

[Radius]

58. Criminal Tresspass, Vandalisim

Going onto someones property to mess their property up is illegal.

On top of being illegal it is fundamentally wrong to act against someone because of a sign in their yard it is dangerous. Reverse the situation and it becomes clearly wrong.

[Robbien]

65. The DUer did not do any of those things

The DUer only took gratification in the misfortune a neighbor received because that neighbor was advertising religion and advertising repression of women's rights on their front lawn. Just as I would take gratification in Bush's disappointment when he loses in November.

Whomever did the TPing shouldn't have done it. But once it was done, I would also have smiled at that neighbor's misfortune.

[Radius]

67. I would not

because it could have been someone who had a pro choice sign.

The act is wrong, taking gratification in someone being attacked for their belief in the US is fundamentally wrong, IMHO.

Where is the line, TP, what about dumping a 55gal drum of used motor oil. It doesn't hurt anyone, just makes a big mess.

It is a slippery slope.

[Robbien]

82. You may be a better person than I

Yes I would have been pleased to see the TPing. If I had seen oil spilled on their lawn, it would have made me sad.

But yes, when someone puts out an advertisement on their lawn and that advertisment caused them an minor inconvenience, I would have smiled.

Actually causing the neighbor that inconvenience would be wrong, but my reaction to someone else's doing it, is my business.

[Radius]

86. OK

But if you are ever on the receiving end I would bet your opinion would change.

This kind of stupid shit has the potential to escalate into a situation where someone is hurt.

Not attacking you, just disagreeing..

[Robbien]

90. I would not put up an advertisement in my front lawn

stating my personal private beliefs.

Remember, it is not that the neighbor was being attacked for having those beliefs. That neighbor put up an advertisement. An advertisement calls for a public reaction. That neighbor got a public reaction.

[Radius]

97. The reaction is wrong

as would be fire bombing their house.

It is not illegal to express your political beliefs in the US.

It is illegal to trespass and vandalize someone's property because of their beliefs.

Nothing good comes out of what they did.

[Robbien]

103. I am not saying it is illegal to advertise your beliefs

What I am saying is that if you advertise, you are calling for a reaction. All reactions are not the ones you may hope to receive.

Expressing your beliefs in social/official settings is much much different than setting up an advertisement.

[Radius]

107. Basic free speech..

You can put a sign on property you own.

That reaction was illegal. And fucking childish. That is a double edged sword and can be used to justify very nasty things.

If you put a bumper sticker in your car window, a public venue, and someone breaks the window that can be construed as a reaction.

Put yourself in their place and it is easier to understand.

It is CRITICAL people are able to express political thought without action being taken against them.

[Robbien]

116. Putting up advertisements about social and religious beliefs

is actively calling for strong social reactions.

Putting up a political advertisement for Bush/Cheney calls for a political reaction.

There is a difference here.

[Radius]

126. This is black and white

either you justify it or not.

I personally do not justify any physical reaction (illegal)to someone expressing an opinion within the bounds of the law.

If you had a pro choice sign up, which is perfectly legal, and some moron messed with your house and property you would be pissed. Just like the posters who have had bumper stickers removed or replaced, or damage done to their car.

Yes people can be provoked but how they react is key here. Being able to express your opinion on a POLITICAL issue without fear of attack is fundamentally important to all of us.

[Yupster]

131. ???

I can't believe this thread. There are actually people defending others being attacked for exercising their right to political speech.
If not defending the attack, at least gloating over it.

Just f*&*^ing unbelievable.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

91. I don't agree with the sign, but not particularly upset by the TP

no real harm, no real foul. I do not know how ardent the "victims" of the dastardly crime are in their beliefs but there is a wing of the Pro Life groups that condones killing doctors who perform abortions, terrorizing women who attend clinics for information, ostracizing and belittling Pro Choice proponents. Many people in some Pro Life groups won't sully their hands with the dirty deeds but will support and argue for the methods. Hypocrites. That they get their panties in a wad over a little toilet paper is silly.

[petronius]

76. I agree with the nay-sayers here

Gloating over someone's house being TPed for a political sign is inappropriate. Even though TP is a non-permanent form of vandalism, it is still not acceptable - there is a major difference between teenagers TPing a friends house on their birthday or something, and anonymous strangers TPing a house out of anger at a viewpoint. Knowing that anonymous and hostile people have come onto your property is a pretty severe violation.

What's sad to me is that people on right-wing sites are saying exactly the same as posts on this thread (This is war. They started it. We're playing by their rules. The ________s are just getting what they deserve. They're reaping what they've sown. Etc.). Neither side is correct, and it really isn't a healthy situation for the body politic.

Personally, I think Yupster's idea of helping to clean up and starting a polite conversation is the smartest thing on this thread...

[George W. Dunce]

88. Get a grip people it's toilet paper

They probably were teenagers out looking for a target and they picked that one because of the sign. Big deal next week it will be someone else yard with out a sign. Egging is popular up here in the northeast around this time of year, teenagers will arbitrarily pick house and egg it, I am sure houses with K/E and B/C sign will both be egged.

Last week was homecoming here and the football team won the "big game" houses around the corner from mine had lawn ornaments switched, such as one guy has a faux well and a bench in his yard, the next morning it was in the neighbors yard three houses down set up the exact same way. They also took gnomes and put them in other yards. I thought it was funny. No damage done whats the big deal?

[petronius]

96. There is a difference between post-big-game hijinks

and a politically motivated TPing. The original post does not give the impression that random pranks are a recurring event in her neighborhood - rather, she makes it clear that this TPing occurred because of the sign. Personally, I think it wrong to commit or gloat over politically motivated acts of vandalism.

As for it being only TP, it doesn't really matter. Of course there are worse forms of vandalism (everything from eggs to fire bombs would be more serious), but even a malicious TPing is violation, and could be interpreted as a threat of worse to come...

[George W. Dunce]

98. Unless they were part of the group that did the TPing

the poster is speculating that it was politically motivated. I am doing the same, speculating that it was kids who were going to do it to any house.

[petronius]

102. We'll never know exactly why this particular TPing occurred,

but the OP, who has the most information, seems certain that it was political. Still, that assumption could be wrong, as you point out.

However, that makes no difference to the real point of the disapproving posts on this thread, which is that politically motivated vandalism (and gloating over it) is wrong no matter who does it. And unfortunately, this sort of behavior is too common from both sides.

[Yupster]

132. If I thought this was a random act of mischievousness, I

wouldn't have a problem.

The original poster seemed to be clear that it was not that at all. He/she seemed to think these people were targetted specifically because they were trying to exercise their right to free political speech on their own property.

To me that's very upsetting. But not nearly as upsetting as others here gloating over the act and trying to justify it.

[Must_B_Free]

80. Abortion: stupid worthless issue

I am a man. I have no idea where to stand on this issue. I like the idea of holding life sacred, but I don;t know how you legislate womens bodies.

I guess if I got a woman pregnant and she wanted to abort my child for her convenience, I might take a side.

It seems this issue is really more about manipulating people politically, rather than solving the problems.

[claudiajean]

92. Please tell me that you are being sarcastic...

Please.

:)

[Yupster]

133. Abortion is a complicated issue,

and has been worth many a 400+ post thread here on DU.

However that is not the issue here at all.

If the sign was about defunding a controversial highway construction project I wouldn't feel any different.

These people have the right to express their political beliefs on their own property without fear of people coming on their property to do them damage, big or little, real or threatened.

And if people like us aren't for protecting that right, then who will be?

[kerry-is-my-prez]

83. Ok - C'mon fess up.... How much did you pay those kids to TP the house.

;-)

[drdigi420]

89. toiletpapering is free speech!

non-violent protest of a sick sign. i see ZERO problem with it

[Radius]

100. Criminal trespass.

Let me be very clear here.

If you trespass onto someones property to vandalize it you are committing a jailable criminal offense.

This was not kids pulling a prank, it was politically motivated.

That person can stop you with appropriate force. Including letting their dogs out or holding you at gunpoint while calling the police. Being on someones property after dark and being on the wrong end of a gun is a bad situation to be in. They may not agree with your right to life.

A stunt like that on the wrong persons house could land you in jail or in the hospital.

It is also against every belief I have about free speech.

[George W. Dunce]

101. I seriously doubt

TPing a house would hardly be criminal trespass. And who is to say they didn't throw it from the street? If you have ever done it those rolls fly pretty far, while flying the TP rolls out making the mess.

[Radius]

106. Yeah

to my friends as a joke. I helped them clean it up, which is a pain in the ass.

In this context it is just wrong. The only house with a RTL sign gets it. Free speech is important, no matter who is speaking.

If it was your place and your Kerry sign that drew a reaction you would be PISSED. I would.

[Silverhair]

124. No it isn't.

Putting up your own sign is free speech. Refusing to speak to that neighbor is free speech. Refusing to do business with him is freedom. TPing his house is an attempt to repress free speech.

[WillyT]

99. Jesus... The Great DU Toilet Paper Controversy !!! - We MUST Be Winning !!

:wtf:

[in_cog_ni_to]

105. The reaction to the TP

is truly enlightening.....to say the least. The right for a woman to CHOOSE whether or not to have an abortion is hanging by a thread and people are more worried about the friggin' Toilet Paper and the rights of the person who wants to take those rights away. What can I say?

[MUSTANG_2004]

109. The right to choose is NOT hanging by a thread

There are only 3 judges (Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist) who would overturn it. Not only that, but the Senate will likely not confirm any new judge who would overturn it.

Given that the Senate would have to confirm not just one, but two such justices (and assuming that Rehnquist, Thomas or Scalia isn't one of the ones being replaced), it is extremely unlikely that Roe v Wade will be overturned, no matter who is elected in 2004.

[in_cog_ni_to]

111. Bullshit.

If the Senate wins a Majority in this election and the chimp is reSelected, we're screwed. They WILL confirm anti-choice justices. It's what they've been waiting for. Planning for. I also didn't believe that the Senate would confirm someone like John Asscroft and look at where we are. They will indeed confirm anti-choice judges. In a HEARTBEAT!


<snip>
That is why leaders of the Religious Right political movement and their allies remain so focused on the Supreme Court. Their goal is to ensure that the president nominates Supreme Court justices who share their view of the Constitution. If they are successful, they could redefine American law for a generation or more. Hanging in the balance are the right to privacy, reproductive choice, civil rights, separation of church and state, environmental protection, and worker and consumer rights. The far right hopes to push the Court further to the right and to take ideological control of the federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court. 1

Right-wing activists have focused so strongly on the Supreme Court for two reasons: 1) the Supreme Court is closely divided on critical issues; and 2) given the age and health of the current justices, the next president will likely have the chance to nominate two or three, and maybe even four justices. On some issues, even one new right-wing candidate will tip the balance. Three or four more justices who share Scalia’s and Thomas’ extreme views would spell disaster.

During the past half-century, the Supreme Court protected individual rights and liberty in many critical areas: it held that a woman has a fundamental right to a safe, legal abortion;2 it struck down many practices related to elections and the political process that denied minorities the right to full, equal participation in our democracy;3 it struck down the pernicious de jure racial segregation in our nation’s public schools;4 it protected government employees from being fired or demoted for their political party affiliation;5 and it ruled that poor parents cannot be denied the same opportunity to appeal as rich parents in cases to terminate their parental rights.6

Yet Justices Scalia and Thomas have used their written opinions to criticize these landmark rulings and to argue that most of these and many other decisions should be reversed, in whole or in part. If a majority of the Court came to share these views, it would overturn much of our nation’s progress toward full equality and would place many injustices beyond remedy by any courts or Congress for decades to come.<snip>

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11113

[MUSTANG_2004]

113. Ever heard of a filibuster?

The Senate will most definitely not be confirming two justices who will strike down Roe v Wade (3, if you consider that Rehnquist is one of the more likely judges to step down).

[in_cog_ni_to]

119. Indeed I have heard of the filibuster

and that is one of the Senate rules that the repukes are "considering" changing.

This is from July...Just 3 months ago.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said he agreed with conservatives that the Senate rules should be rewritten soon to invalidate filibusters of judicial nominees.

“We’re working on it,” Santorum said. “We need the votes to do it. September is the best time to do it. This is about the future, and it’s not about one president or another” being in charge next year.

Santorum said that Frist was on board to rewrite the rules. A spokesman for Frist could not be reached for comment.

Currently, Republican leaders do not have enough support within their own caucus to support a rules change issued from the chair with a simple majority. <snip>

http://www.hillnews.com/news/072104/frist.aspx

This is on the backburner right now, but if they win a majority in the Senate, this rule may change. Read the last paragraph of this article.

Are you kidding? They will do whatever they need to to set up their agenda of appointing anti-choice judges. Just give them an inch....

[MUSTANG_2004]

121. I don't know why you're saying "If"

they win a majority. They already have a majority. Why do you think the rule will change if they keep that majority after 2004?

[in_cog_ni_to]

123. IF they win a BIGGER more CONSERVATIVE majority...the

repukes will do as they wish. They don't have the support to change the filibuster rule right now, BUT, as the last sentence of the article states..<snip>“The Republicans likely to win in November are likely to be more conservative,” he said.<snip> If THAT happens, the filibuster rule WILL be changed, IMCPO, and then we women are SCREWED! Actually, our entire country will be SCREWED!

[Yupster]

134. And if Roe versus Wade disappeared tomorrow,

the right to choose would still not disappear.

The issue would revert back to the state legislatures where they would overwhelmingly (maybe 47 of 50 states) preserve the right.

But that's not the topic of this thread so I digress.

[neuvocat]

104. What, no pictures?

:shrug:

[AmerDem]

118. Pull the board out of your asses!

A petty, harmless prank that has been around since the dawn of time was pulled on someone who supports a fascist administration and some of you take the holier then thou attitude? Sometimes you have to say:wtf:

[Radius]

125. All fine and dandy

until it is your house or car getting fucked with.

If someone ripped you Kerry sign down and tp your house for your beliefs I suspect you'd be pissed.

It is a prank when kids are doing it as a prank.

It is different if it is done as a reaction to political speech.

[in_cog_ni_to]

127. No one ripped down their sign...it's STILL there. n/t

[Radius]

128. It was nice of them to trespass and vandalize and leave the sign(NT)

[in_cog_ni_to]

129. I thought so too. n/t

[The Straight Story]

130. An immature attempt to prove what

to the people with the sign?

If a freeper toilet papered the house of an islamic person we would be crying hate crime/etc.

Hate is hate, and if we are to preach against it, we should practice what we preach imho.

[Yupster]

135. This reminds me of an old George Carlin joke

he used to tell in the 70's.

He'd go on about how (in paraphrase)

America is a land of so many dfferent peoples and we need to stop fighting one group against the other. When I grew up it was Irish against Italians. Now it's Whites against Blacks and Jews against Christians, and hard hats against hippies. People - can't we all get along, us Whites and Blacks, and Irish and Italian and Mexican and Pole. We need to all stick together. ----- So we can beat the crap out of these Chinese guys moving in.

I guess to many people it's just a matter of whose ox is being gored. Horrible when it's mine, but funny as hell if it's my neighbor's.

[fortyfeetunder]

136. Well, do they want the DEATH PENALTY

for the perpetrators who TP'ed their house?

[BonjourUSA]

137. How long is necessary for doing such a bullshit ?