Racista!

It’s spelled incorrectly, but I’m pretty sure that this person meant to write “racista,” but we get the message.

  37 comments for “Racista!

  1. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 11:39 am

    Thats awesome! The people who agree and support you are illiterate. I’m sure they make great voters.

    Once again you’ve proven your self to be a bad pillow biter! BAD, BAD pillow biter. No go to your room and put on your favorite Boy George record and give yourself a good ole peeper tuck and dance like an ugly woman.

  2. August 22, 2006 at 12:04 pm

    Illiteracy is a problem that shouldn’t be mocked.

    Instead of wasting your time posting homophobic flames, why don’t you put together a cogent argument.

  3. Juan Cervantes
    August 22, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Mike,

    You must have been tired when you vandalized that sign, either that or, you were hung over from “Drinking Liberally.” Your skills as a vandal are deteriorating. Get some rest because last time I looked you’ve got your work cut out for you with all those Tan sign’s that are currently up. Maybe you can recruit some volunteers from Loretta office to help you out with your efforts.

  4. August 22, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    Speaking of tired, when are you guys going to stop accusing me of writing on these signs?

    Do you live in the 47th? If so, you’ve seen these signs all over with writing on them.

    Stop blaming me for this, and start coming up with a few reasons why we should vote for Tan.

  5. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    I agree with Juan, you should really stop destroying Tan’s signs. He is spending his own money and working very hard.

  6. Liam Murphy
    August 22, 2006 at 3:23 pm

    11:39,

    It’s Mike’s prerogative if he enjoys “Toe Touching Contests” or taking long bubble baths while listening to John Tesh…but him destroying Tan’s signs is WRONG!

  7. brock in anaheim
    August 22, 2006 at 3:42 pm

    Mike is not defacing Tan’s signs.

    In fact, I’ve never actually seen him pick up a marker and use it… and I hang out with him quite a bit.

  8. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 4:01 pm

    You would be so pissed if this was happening to Loretta, so STOP VANDALIZING TAN’S SIGNS, MIKE!!!!!!!

  9. August 22, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    Keep up the good work, Mike. If you need more sharpies or spray paint please stop by the office.

  10. August 22, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    Mike,

    What I don’t understand is why you encourage the vandal(s) by publicizing the defacing of Tan’s signs? And without approbation.

    Would it be so amusing if someone did the same thing to Loretta Sanchez signs?

  11. August 22, 2006 at 6:31 pm

    Matt Cunningham (a.k.a Jubal)-

    If Loretta Sanchez was out of touch with the people of the 47th, and if she was an opportunistic politician whose beliefs changed depending on what she felt would get her elected, then YES it would be funny.

    Luckily that is not the case.

  12. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Loretta is not in touch with me and I live in the district! The difference I wouldn’t go and deface her signs like these delinquents. What gives someone the right to vandalize property when they don’t agree with them on the issues? I don’t agree with you so maybe I’ll vandalize your car…listen to yourself Mike, you make absolutely no sense!!!!!

  13. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 9:51 pm

    It appears that Mike is the one who is out of touch here. It seems to me like the majority of the people who posted comments on this article and previous articles agree with Tan. Should I be the one to say “the emperor has no clothes?”

  14. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 9:56 pm

    That’s not the best way to get data on the number of people that support your guy.

    Just because five people have come here to show support doesn’t mean that the majority of the people in the 47th agree.

  15. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 10:17 pm

    Neither is saying Tan is out of touch with his Constituents because people are vandalizing his signs.

  16. Anonymous
    August 22, 2006 at 10:26 pm

    Who has said that?

    There are plenty of reasons why Tan is out of touch with the voters in that district. The vandalism is a product of…

  17. August 22, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    Mike:

    So, it is OK to deface campaign signs? Are you endorsing vandalism?

  18. August 23, 2006 at 12:46 am

    Jubal,

    Mike has stated on more than one occasion that her neither supports nor condones the vandalism of campaign signs. On August 16th he wrote: “Again, I don’t support anybody defacing a Tan Nguyen sign. If you really want to send a message to the Nguyen campaign, go walk precincts for Loretta.” In his response to you he said it “would be funny” if Loretta was as out of touch with her constituents as Tan and her signs were vandalized. Saying that the vandalism of signs is funny does not equate to condoning vandalism.

    And Jubal, you seem to be a private property rights kind of guy so I’ll pose the following riddle: Which of these constitutes vandalism?

    1. Defacing political signs placed without permission or illegally on private or public property, or

    2. Defacing private and public property by posting political signs without permission or illegally.

    From what I’ve seen of Tan Nguyen’s placement of campaign signs, he should be declared a public nuisance, and fined for each and every illegally placed sign.

    Go With TAN, A Vandal Without A Plan.

  19. Anonymous
    August 23, 2006 at 4:24 am

    Yeah because Tan is the ONLY one to do this with his signs, give me a break! I still see signs on Private and Public property from Democratic candidates who lost in the primary. And I’m sure we will see Loretta signs all over the place in a matter of weeks, but you will fail to talk about those. At least Tan cleaned his signs up after the primary. Are you mentally retarded or just dumb??

  20. Anonymous
    August 23, 2006 at 6:04 am

    4:24,

    Looking at his picture and logic, I would have to go with Mentally Retarted.

  21. August 23, 2006 at 7:32 am

    To the two previous Anon posters…

    Nice and brave of you to post your comments without your name or picture. Too bad you have to resort to childish tactics instead of trying to make a coherent argument.

    I will concede that “everyone posts signs all over the place.” However, as a previous candidate for office in Garden Grove, I remember the notice that all candidates get regarding where you can post signs. On the top of the list is the admonition that your signs should not be posted on public property, in particular center medians of public streets.

    Tan apparently cannot read. During all of his campaigns he has chosen to flagrantly ignore these rules.

    By far, he is the worst offender, and Loretta does not post her signs in public street medians. In fact, most of her signs are posted by her supporters in their own front yards.

  22. August 23, 2006 at 7:42 am

    You know what; I actually have changed my position here.

    I do support, condone, and encourage the defacing, destruction, and removal of any political sign placed on public property.

    I see it as graffiti removal.

    I think I’ll call the project,

    “Remove Tan’s Tags.”

    Or “Tagging Illegal Tan”

  23. August 23, 2006 at 8:40 am

    For those of us that haven’t been paying attention, you guys should rehash exactly why Tan is a racist.

    …and more trashing of Rohrabacher please.

  24. August 23, 2006 at 8:57 am

    Chris:

    It’s disingenuous for Mike to say “Well, I certainly don’t condone vandalism” (although I’ve been unable to get him to state as much here), while posting a picture every time somebody defaces one of Tan’s signs. If Mike thinks this vandalism should cease, he should say as much and stop encourging the vandal(s).

    I don’t know Tan. I’ve never met him or spoken with him. I know very little about him. But he paid for those signs, and whoever is vandalizing them is destroying property. Maybe Mike thinks that is funny and worthy of recognition.

    As for your question about which constitutes vandalism — defacing the signs or placing them private and public property without permission: I think it’s more a distinction of degree, and not kind. the former destroys property — the defaced signs don’t do what Tan paid for.

    The proliferation of campaign signs on public and private property during campagn season, generally speaking, doesn’t destroy property. It’s like the difference between someone planting a yard sign on my lawn without permission and spray painting an insult on my house. Which do you think is more serious?

  25. August 23, 2006 at 9:43 am

    actually, from the moment that sign gets placed unlawfully, it’s pretty much open season and no longer an issue of private property.

    the idiotic comparison of spray painting a house and defacing a sign that is in and of itself defacement just doesn’t fly.

    tan gets his sign out there, people have responded by making it their own. freedom of you know what at it’s best.

    however… i’d like to join in the chorus and ask what, exactly, makes tan a racist?

    i’ve seen no evidence whatsoever.

  26. Anonymous
    August 23, 2006 at 10:22 am

    wow! 25 comments and counting! this is kewl! i would just like to mention that the wood stake that holds up an ugly green tan sign makes a dandy fire starter when broken up and also a great tomato stake for holding up my prize tomato plants. tan is really making a difference in our community. keeping beaners warm and tomato plants from falling over. thanx tan!

  27. August 23, 2006 at 1:54 pm

    I’m not so sure the Republicans posting here would care of someone were defacing Loretta Sanchez’s signs. Matt/Anon …Mike is simply posting a photo and providing//reporting a story here. There is no endorsement of vandalism and non of us who post on this site have time to do electoral dirty tricks. Voters in the district need to be concerned that Tan doesn’t live here; he claims his parent’s house as a residence despite owning a home near Sacramento.

  28. August 23, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    Serrach:

    the idiotic comparison of spray painting a house and defacing a sign that is in and of itself defacement just doesn’t fly.

    Are you going to demonstrate why my anology was idiotic, or are we supposed to accept it because you say so?

    Dan:

    As for defacing Sanchez signs:

    1) I wouldn’t post a picture every time it happened, accompanied by an amused comment. What is this — the tenth time Mike has posted a defaced Tan sign?

    2) I would condemm it. It’s vandalism. Vandalism is wrong regardless of the victim’s party affiliation.

  29. Anonymous
    August 23, 2006 at 7:19 pm

    People, they’re campaign signs! They don’t make an iota of difference in the outcome of an election and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
    I don’t condone vandalism, but I also don’t believe it is appropriate for any candidate to plaster their signs illegally without permission of property owners. Especially 10 weeks before an election!
    I am amused and perplexed by the anonymous posters who seem to make Mike’s sexual orientation an issue on every topic using junior high terms like pillow-biter and peeper tuck. Grow up, folks. And please explain your endless fascination with Mike’s sex life!
    And if any of you people actually knew Congresswoman Sanchez, you would know that the Queen of Cheap (proudly) would never willingly part with a Sharpie. Geez, we used to have to ask volunteers to bring their own pens or leave a deposit for a PaperMate when they precinct walked.
    How else do you think she manages to hold on to a million dollar war chest?

  30. August 23, 2006 at 9:45 pm

    Matt Cunningham,

    I’ve said many times that I do not condone or encourage people to vandalize the signs. If you think that the people that are vandalizing the signs are also cruising TheLiberalOC.com to see their work glamorized, you’re giving this little blog and me too much credit.

    Second, you suggest that I am photographing and posting EACH sign that is vandalized. That is also far from true. The people of the 47th have a strong distaste for Tan, and his signs are getting vandalized all over. I don’t have time to pull over and photograph each Hitler mustache.

    Here’s the final word: I’m simply documenting a problem that a local political campaign is having in Orange County…and since this campaign happens to be that of a candidate that is claiming to be a Republican, I have also included a jab or two.

    Lighten up.

  31. August 23, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    Matt –
    Defacing a Republican canddiates sign is bad, but defaming a progressive or democratic candidate on OCBlog.net via names like “ChiCom Krom,” “Krommunist,” and “Agranista” is perfectly OK. If fact, I’d say its that sort of name-calling that’s encouraged on your own site. Hell, you guys (Fleischman especially) can’t say the word “liberal” without sounding like you’re digusted.

    I credit you with jumping to the defense of a candidate of your party (as I do to mine) but kinda tough to yell “no fair” when you (Republicans) have mud on your (their)hands too.

    Mike’s right; lighten up. ;)

  32. August 24, 2006 at 9:48 am

    Fine, I’ll chime in with a “lighten up” of my own, guys.

    I think there’s a difference between property destruction and the rough and tumble of political discourse. You don’t. We’ll agree to disagree.

    Finally, I’m not jumping to the defense of a candidate of my party. I’m objecting to property destruction and making light of it.

    Now we can lighten up.

  33. Anonymous
    August 24, 2006 at 11:08 am

    i think those signs are not only offensive they are ugly! and they are evrywhere! i know it’s illegal to put signs on private property and islands but for some reason mr. tans people dont seem to follow those rules. i have never seen so many people pissed off at a candidate’s signs like this before. it really does speak volumes about the guy and for what he stands for. ive gotten a few mailers lately and they have a picture of tan putting up signs. theres a caption at the bottom that says “tan putting up a sign” like i want to see that?! the problem is that there is so many of them. and why does he feel the need to keep putting up more in areas where you are not allowed to? he is breaking the law plain and simple. i’m counting the weeks until the election so that after he loses we wont have to see these horrible looking signs anymore.

  34. August 24, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    Jubal

    cus it’s obvious that a person’s home and a sign that has been essentially thrown away by someone have different values.

    it’s as simple as that.

    el s

  35. Anonymous
    August 26, 2006 at 2:02 am

    “I think there’s a difference between property destruction and the rough and tumble of political discourse.” — Jubal

    Those who would argue that political signing is the “rough and tumble of political discourse” are apologists for the status quo.

    Signing is not discourse.

  36. August 27, 2006 at 6:52 pm

    I think if a voter places a sign for a candidate they support in the front yard, that sign should be spared the graffiti; then I would agree with Matt that’s it vandalism.

    But if you place signs on public property, go ahead and mark them up. At that point, as a candidate, you have surrendered control of that sign and just hope it sticks around until election day.

    And sorry Matt, name calling has no place in rough and tumble political discourse.

  37. The OC "Oh-we Crazy"
    September 2, 2006 at 11:09 pm

    A Vietnamese Congressman, Come-on. Next thing we’ll hear is that there was a “man on the moon.” I don’t know what the OC is on, but I know we can illiminate LOGIC.

Comments are closed.