Thursday, October 28, 2010

Someone who should have thought ... even a little

Graffiti? That's a bad move.

Tagging church property? Even worse.

Spray painting church property with political vandalism that identifies your very own website and violates elections laws in the first place? Charming.

Pastor [Kevin] Colvard [of Stone Oak Presbyterian Church] thought he was performing his civic duty by having his church used as an early voting site for this year's midterm elections. But little did he know this gesture would generate a negative response towards one political candidate [Susan Reed], and indirectly cause damage to his parish.

"There are things that we need to unite us in this time in our country, and we don't need rhetoric to divide,” Pastor Colvard said.

Election officials and early voters got a shock Thursday morning when they noticed graffiti spray painted and even stenciled on Stone Oak Presbyterian Church's sidewalks. About 100 feet from the election site. It violates election laws.

"Since it is obviously political information within the voting area, so I contacted the District Attorney's Officer and inform them about the location and what was spray painted on the ground,” said David Neisen, an early voter.

(from KENS-5)

The graffiti says "". The people involved with this website had this to say:
We know nothing about "Grafitti". [sic] We would never encourage vandalism.


We fear retaliation from Reed and the DA office (due to the website) so we must remain anonymous.
They swear they are Republicans who do not like Susan Reed, who is running for re-election as the district attorney. Nicholas LaHood is the Democrat running against her, and he swears he has nothing to do with the graffiti either.

It's all very odd, don't you think?


Anonymous said...

They used spray chalk. Chalk, not spray paint you idioits. As soon as the water sprinkler hits the taggins --- its gone. Rain and it is really gone. Simply foot trafick smears it. It it is freaking chalk you morons. They used chalk not paint. Hysterical san antonio

Albatross said...

Chalk or not, it's still graffiti. And if it is within 100 feet of the polling entrance, it still violates elections laws.

Albatross said...

And it's still odd. Dontcha think?

Hmmmmmm said...

Politics are so polarized these days, I can't say this really surprises me all that much. Discourtesy in political dialogue is somewhat out of control. I doubt that either candidate is responsible for the graffiti, it was probably some over zealous supporter.

Sabra said...

According to the Current, it's all supposed to be spray chalk. But yeah, it makes the people who did it look like raving fools. Raving fools with internet access, apparently, who are obsessively Googling themselves.

Me, I think Reed has done enough to make herself look inept if not corrupt that a former drug dealer looks like a good choice in comparison, and there's really no need to violate election laws.

Dave said...

Chalk, not spray paint you idioits.

Besides the fact that Anonymous spelled "idiots" wrong (which is pretty funny), I saw the report of where this crap was tagged up and down the sidewalk. Just from the damage point of view (forgetting all the legal aspect of of violating election law) even if it washes off with water, it still requires someone to clean up your mess. Unless we have a switch that can turn on the rain machine at will, of course.

I've got an idea: Why don't we line up these chalky-stencil jerks and shoot them with rubber bullets. It is freaking rubber bullets you morons.