Saturday, April 14, 2007

Disturbing post over at "Angry White Boy"

Please take the time to go read this post:
<http://www.angrywhiteboy.org/index.php/2007/04/14/cathy-hawks-caught-stealing-signs/>

This post speaks for itself...

Mike Sylvester

35 comments:

Tim Zank said...

Things like this do more damage to a candidate than most things.

STOOPID....really STOOPID!

Anonymous said...

why hasn't AWB reported on the kelty supporters that have already been arrested for pulling up peters signs?

Angry White Boy said...

To anonymous.

I see the police logs every day. What arrests?

bobett said...

Yes, what arrests?

Jeff Pruitt said...

More ethics training for the Republican party...

Tim Zank said...

Looks like another rock solid reason to disallow anonymous comments, eh?

Angry White Boy said...

As long as Mike allows anonymous comments, this Blog will be a haven for misinformation from people that cannot back up their claims with facts.

I'm honestly surprised Mike's let them go this long.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

My next blog will NOT allow anonyous comments...

When Robert takes over this blog he will continue to allow them...

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

AWB,

Hmmm, you seem to be right in the middle of this, and I find that curious. How coincidental that someone who clearly loathes Mr. Peters so much just happens to know this fireman personally. And, how strange to look up police reports every day. Don't you have a job? I'm sure a lot of your time is spent in court defending yourself against all the lawsuits that have been brought against you. Just curious, does anyone who orders from you online get their products?

Angry White Boy said...

To faceless, namelss & ANONYMOUS:

It's not coincidental and no I'm not right in the middle of it, I was the one that was given the information.

Mrs. Hawks just picked the wrong spot which is right on front of a firehouse.

Job? No, I just sit around the house eating ding-dongs and blog all day.

Police logs? Anyone can look, go to their site.

Try ordering. Over to a 125,000 people have in the last few years and that's not considered when looking at the fact that we screwed up 12 times (and admitted it).

Terri said...

AWB and Bobette,

I'm not aware of any arrests but I do know for a fact that there have been two police reports filed against the same man because I personally caught the guy red-handed destroying campaign signs. It seems he doesn't like republicans in general because he
was caught destroying and stealing only republican candidates' signs.

I haven't pressed charges YET because I kind of feel bad for the gutless, bicycle-riding, 62 year old loser.

I doubt we got the whole story- if there even is a story- regarding AWB's post but I can guarantee
that Nelson Peters would NEVER condone such behavior. I would bet
my LIFE on it.

Angry White Boy said...

Terri,

I agree that Mr. Peters' would never condone this. It's really a shame it happened at all but I suppose for many the real shocker was who was doing it.

As for this loser you caught - I say file against him. Let's make an example out of someone.

bud said...

This is really, really funny. The minister's wife and party debutante leading the "Vandals for Peters" contingency. Maybe she should update her radio commercial to add something like "The Jesus stuff is very inportant in my life, but I'LL SIN FOR NELSON!

The Peter's campaign must be really scared if even the leadership is out stealing campaign signs.

Anonymous said...

Biblically, this would appear to be bad news for the Peters campaign.

"So now the Lord said to him, 'Since you have not kept our agreement and have not obeyed my laws, I will tear the kingdom away from you and your family and give it to someone else.'"

1 Kings 11:11

Ooops!

Anonymous said...

I am only posting this as anonymous bc i dont want certain ppl to see who this is due to my role in the community. However, I can assure all of you that I placed numerous Peters signs throughout the city. A few days later when driving by, I realized that in a certain location where I had placed MANY Peters' signs, they were all missing. However, the Peters' signs were the only ones missing. There were about 7 Kelty signs there and other candidates such as Bob Morris and Adam Mildred. None of these were touched.

I looked into this leaving all possibilies of misunderstanding opening, but was informed later that there had been more than one arrest in relation to Peters' signs being taken. I will admit that I don't know the whole story as to who specifically took my signs, but I do know that charges were not filed and there are no intentions to do so.

I know that Nelson Peters would never be in favor of any such behavior, and I also admit that I am disappointed as to who it was taking Kelty signs. But you must be fair to Peters because he had no involvement in the acts, and it may very well appear that Kelty had no involvement in the Peters signs being taken.

I was incredibly disappointed to see AWB's post as his blog is incredibly biased and close-minded. Let's all stop with this nonsense and at least debate about the issues....not people ON BOTH SIDES of the race who have bad intentions in mind.

PS: None of this is made up...I only wish I could not post anonymously

bud said...

Yes, yes, yes, anonymous, we believe you and appreciate your super sensitive position. It must have been difficult for you to put up all those Peters signs under cover of darkness. How brave of you to risk blowing your cover that way.

Since you are convinced that Mr. Peters would never condone such behavior, it seems Kathy Hawks has given him a good opportunity to vocalize his stand. Can we expect him to denounce her behavior and remove her from the prominent spot on his web site, or should we just trust you that he doesn't approve even if he doesn't voice his disapproval?

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Anonymous:

I really do not understand why people think they cannot speak up and use their own name.

I post my email address and phone number on this blog, I am in the phone book, and I post a picture of myself on my blog and use my real name... I have never had anything more then a few crank phone calls and that is something I can deal with.

I am not afraid that someone will recognize me.

My wife and I run an accounting firm in Fort Wayne and my public opinions have never adversly affected our business...

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

Nice of Kathy to resign her position with the Republican party BEFORE going all "Thelma and Louise" on us.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

It has nothing to do with people calling me etc. I would be more than happy to post with my name, but I can't due to my affiliation with a group. I have actually been instructed to not get on blogs and make certain statements.

As for putting up the signs, that was 100% encouraged by my affiliated group, however, blogging and stirring up certain information was discouraged. I comply, but could not resist on this topic. Hope you understand.

William Larsen said...

Every year around an election we see the nasty campaign signs come out. We drive down the road and see not one, but ten or more signs in a row, from the same candidate, not only on one side of the road, but both sides.

Recent editorials have called for our county representatives to do something about them. An individual living along Rudisill is pulling them out. Should we pass an ordinance against signs?

As a candidate who has run in three past primaries, I have really despised those candidates that litter our public lands with literally hundreds of signs in a small area. Then they leave their signs up after the election for others to take down. Does putting up multiple signs actually convince anyone you are better than the others?

Allen County is large with many intersections. There must be five thousand if not more. This means there could be as many as 20,000 unique directions (four way stops). Do we need a sign on every corner for every candidate? Now we have reports of people pulling signs up. Could it possibly be a war of attrition? If a candidate puts up enough signs, the thought is you can’t possibly pull them all down.

What should be done? A candidate can use radio, Television, newspaper, flyers, phone, and signs to get their message out. Radio costs about $30 per minute and Television is even more. Newspapers can run $1,800 for a two-day add. Flyers run about $1.35 each. Automatic phone messages run about 75 cents each. Campaign signs cost $3.00 each. It is not cheap to run for office.

Past editorials have complained about the amount of money spent on campaigns. Others complain about being called and still others complain about the campaign literature. Some complain about the candidates they have to choose from while others complain about the media not doing a good job at reporting. How do we allow and entice good candidates to run for office to do so and keep politicians honest?

As a candidate, I have used signs and I like the sign as a way to get your message out. It is low cost and highly effective. I have a few main rules:

1. I put no more than one sign up per corner and generally no more than one sign per ¼ mile in the same direction.
2. I mark on streets USA where every sign is located so that it can be removed.
3. I begin collecting my signs at 6:00 PM when the polls close.

Instead of banning campaign signs, I propose limits on the number of signs as well as a requirement that they be removed in a reasonable amount of time. At the same time stiff fines for those caught interfering with an election by pulling down signs.

Public property is just that. We have all seen stores advertising going out of business, sales, or specials using signs and people holding these signs on public property. The public square was used to voice opinions, to speak openly and free. Public property is for all to use, but we must be good stewards as well. If campaign signs are outlawed, then the number seeking office will shrink leaving us with fewer choices. It will be very difficult for a non-incumbent to get elected and it will cost a lot more. We as voters will end up with less choice and poorer candidates to choose from.

In essence a campaign sign is free speech. Leave the sign alone. If you do not like the candidate, use your free speech right to tell others, but do not infringe on the right of others free speech.

Anonymous said...

The truth of the matter is someone had a Nelson Peters sign placed in that spot and when Ms. Hawks noticed that someone had surrounded it with a bunch of Kelty signs, all she did was move one so you could see Mr. Peters again. No, she didn't rip it or toss it. Just moved ONE of the many that were blocking Mr.Peters sign. If any of you actually knew Ms. Hawks, this bees nest wouldn't be stirred up. Ms. Hawks is a good woman who would never do anything shoddy. I think even Matt Kelty would agree to that. Come on, get off her back. AWB - stop being so mean all the time.

Anonymous said...

This is to Bud -

What on earth are you talking about? Are you and AWB related?

Anonymous said...

I have actually helped on Mr. Peters campaign. He made it perfectly clear when "someone" was sandwiching his signs with theirs, to only move his. He has told all of his volunteers to never touch someone else's signs. If his are being blocked or sandwiched, pulled down or ripped apart, just to either move his again or replace it.This gets tiring and expensive, but it's the right thing to do.

Robert Enders said...

I will allow most anonymous comments. However, if they are vulgar, libelous, etc, I will delete them. It will be up to my sole descretion to delete these comments. If someone comes on this blog and says "Jane Doe steals signs" or "Joe Blow is a thief" without presenting any evidence, I will delete that comment.

If you must protect your identity but have important information, you can contact me and I will protect your identity. However, I would have to reveal my source if I get a subpeona. So if it involves criminal activity, contact a professional journalist who is covered by Indiana's shield laws. Journalists cannot be made to reveal a source in an Indiana state court, but they can be forced to in a federal court.

Bull said...

The truth of the matter is, Mr. Anonymous, that Mrs. Hawks was planting the first of ANY Peters signs on the Scott/Covington "T" about 7:20 Saturday morning. She wasn't trying to un-sandwich any signs. I was one of a team of fire fighters who watched in disbelief as she pulled a Kelty sign out and replaced it with a Peters' sign for better viewing. Saw it firsthand. All of you who didn't actually SEE it happen can dispute various stories, but I saw it happen. It's the truth, and I understand why Kathy is conveying a different story. I would be embarrassed too! She turned red when confronted about it. Initially she denied it saying, "What sign? I didn't touch any sign!" Then, after realizing she was caught red-handed, she said, "You really want me to put it back where it was?" She reluctantly put the Kelty sign back where she pulled it from and said, "....there, is that good enough?" Perhaps Peters needs to share his new ethics policy with his campaign volunteers.

Mrs. Hawks is probably a good person; however, on Saturday morning she made a poor choice and needs to be honest about the situation. “The Lord detests lying lips, but He delights in men who are truthful.” Proverbs 12:22

Craig said...

Enough about signs, what this campaign should really be about is hair!

Nelson Peters, no hair.

Matt Kelty, a hairdo meant for selling used Buicks.

We report, you decide.

Baker’s Hide-A-Way said...

.. that only leaves Tom Henry, he has a healthy head of hair.

Anonymous said...

Craig,

I thought that was pretty funny. The hair thing. Know what, this campaign really should be about hair.

Robert Enders said...

If it were about hair, I'd be President and Speaker of the House at the same time.

Craig said...

I had a pretty good view of Evan Bayh's hair. I think it hypnotized me for awhile because next thing I knew I woke up at home and I had buried eggs under my pillow.

Katherine Coble said...

I really do not understand why people think they cannot speak up and use their own name.


Mike, ordinarily I would agree with you. But after the week I've just had, I would say that anonymous blogging may not be such a bad idea after all.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Kat:

I smell a story...

Mike Sylvester

Katherine Coble said...

Oh goodness.

Yeah. Kind of.

I should have hidden over here this week.

The upshot is here and here.

Tim Zank said...

Mike, anonymous at 10:19 am is a prime example again for disallowing anonymous comments.
Just dropping a bomb and driving off....no names..no evidence..just an implication.....

I don't know Ms. Hawks, but it seems to me if you're gonna kick her in the ribs while she's down, at least have the cajones to identify yourself while you're doing it.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

Tim Zank:

A agree.

I deleted that comment...

Mike Sylvester