Staking their claim: Campaign signs become a target

[AAAARRRRGGHH]

Diogenes wrote:

<quoted text>
Weak campaign? You mean because they only had $84 million dollars to spend from Federal Funds and Obama had over $650 million because he broke his promise of campaign reform so he could collect private donations? You do recall reading where a large percentage of those donations were illegal in that they were on untraceable debit cards?
Is that what you mean by weak campaign or do you mean they didn't promise people more money back in taxes than Obama did? Isn't that like "buying" votes from the uneducated when you do that?
Or maybe you mean weak campaign by the fact that Obama was running just over 75% negative campaign ads when McCain was running just over 50% at a time when Obama accused McCain of negative campaigning on television? You do know that this equates to about 10 times the number of ads being negative from Obama to McCain's when you factor in the 7 X budget that Obama has over McCain's.
Just what do you mean by weak campaign?

Hey Tennessee! Where are you? Are you busy sewing new white sheets to wear?

Between the election and the sorry Volunteer football team, it must be pretty sad times up there for you guys.

[AAAARRRRGGHH]

No Kool Aid wrote:

<quoted text>
Listen crack ****'
I don't STEAL the signs...I destroy them. There is a differnce.
The signs I destroy are placedon city or county property that code enforcememnt patrols and removes campaign signs and other signs.
Anyway...last night we ggot a bunch and shredded them! Yee ha!

Gosh, all that time and energy spent destroying signs and you still lost. How does futility taste?

[kimberly]

hi this is awesome

[Mel Lanoma]

kimberly wrote:

hi this is awesome

Yeah, history is amazing, all right...

So, how old are you ? Six ?