Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Posted by sleeplessinftwayne z4-5 IND (My Page) on
Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 16:47

The link is below. The jist of the story is that Democrat operatives or supporters (you chose the term, the operative word is Democrat)are videotaping the exterior of the private homes of Republican Congresspersons sometimes with addresses in full view and posting them on YouTube. No Democrat Congressperson's homes are getting the same treatment.

The comments are rather indicative of the party of the commentor. Personally I cannot imagine anything good coming out of this. There are too many potentially unstable persons who may or may not even be politically inclined who are capable of causing harm just for the sake of becoming famous or are just crazy enough to take it as an invitation to stalking. I think the comments that refer to it as intimidation are justified rather than paranoid. As I read the article I got sick to my stomach at the thought of the possible consequences.

I think that at the least, the videos should be removed immediately. Families live there and do not have the type of security to protect against stalkers that could be attracted.

Here is a link that might be useful: Is this really a good idea or dangerous?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 16:57

Well if painting a "target" on representatives faces is not seen as a threat, then why would this?

I do not approve of either tactic, but then I can actually sit on top of the fence and see the possible consequences to families from non-thinking individuals.

Can't defend one and condemn the other.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

"I think that when you decide to run for office, it's like being a celebrity - you take the responsibility of being in the public eye," she said. "We didn't intend for this to be nasty. We were trying to show that this guy is inaccessible to his constituents."

California Republican Assemblyman David Valadao, whose two Central Valley farms are the subjects of videos that also include their addresses, said he recognized the risks that come with campaigning for office and is prepared to deal with them. So is his wife.

I certainly would prefer for them not to show the physical address.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

The addresses are easy enough to find so if someone is meaning to do harm I don't think it would be because they got the idea from a video.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 17:35

Link to the address of Obama's home as well as a street view.

Shhhhhh don't tell no one ... :)

Here is a link that might be useful: source


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

I see nothing positive coming from actions like this. But addresses of the famous and near famous are easy enough to come by. Take a walk through Georgetown sometime - you can't throw a stone (not that you would) without hitting some Senator or Congressperson or diplomat's window.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 17:40

"One" of Romney's homes, with satellite view also.

Here is a link that might be useful: State secrets?


 o
....and on the right

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 17:41

"One" of Romney's homes, with satellite view also, other homes also available for viewing.

Here is a link that might be useful: State secrets?


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

I see nothing positive coming from actions like this. But addresses of the famous and near famous are easy enough to come by. Take a walk through Georgetown sometime - you can't throw a stone (not that you would) without hitting some Senator or Congressperson or diplomat's window.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 17:47

Well, it's good to know where to FedEx the tar and feathers (Just Kidding :)


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

And let's not forget to put a gag order on neighbors.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

So when the NYT ran a story on Romney's proposed rennovations/expansion of his home in La Jolla, complete with a photo and interviews with neighbors - lots of quotes from the gay couple on the block - and descriptions of his security guard there should have been outrage?


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 18:45

Over 700 comments on the OP's link, here are just two:

"The party that says that if a woman needs an abortion, she must first have a camera shoved inside her; and if you aren't lily white in Arizona, you must produce papers; and if you're down on your luck in Florida, you must urinate in a cup; now says that showing images of their homes is an invasion of privacy! How does that make sense?"

and

"We need more Jorge Zimmermans"


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Slow down a bit with the Democrat versus Republican crap why doncha because you are talking about a shared world here. Imposition on a persons privacy is not to be encouraged and if we look at Paris Hilton as the way forward in this respect we are doomed.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Slow down a bit with the Democrat versus Republican crap why doncha because you are talking about a shared world here. Imposition on a persons privacy is not to be encouraged and if we look at Paris Hilton as the way forward in this respect we are doomed.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

sleepless I saw this on the news.
One rep said his wife caught a man taking pictures of their home while the guy was trying to hide behind some shrub.
She was very alarmed because they have children that play outside.

The purpose of pictures is thought to be for show and tell,
LOOK how the wealthy live, look at these million dollar homes.
Like most politicians don't live in fine homes.

Its too dangerous and these politicians have small children outside.
They need and should back off this.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Really? In this day and age of the internet, google earth, and (gasp!) phone books, this is an issue?

Hey, if they don't like the riff raff on public streets taking pictures, let them move to a gated community.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

As long as you are standing on a public sidewalk and not on private property, I don't think they can't stop you from taking a picture.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on Sat, Jul 14, 12 at 19:23

"Really? In this day and age of the internet, google earth, and (gasp!) phone books, this is an issue?"

Obviously that's true, David. But is this really necessary? It may be just asking for trouble. If the point is to demonstrate inaccessibility of the elected reps, isn't there another way? Maybe a video with the lady who was knocking on the door, instead talking about the numerous email/letters/calls to her rep, eliciting no response?

The way it's being done could be construed to be that the point is, that the reps are "haves" to be distrusted; that they can't/don't relate to the "have nots" or the "have some, want mores". If that is the driving force behind this campaign, then the purpose of the exercise is to cause hard feelings, and isn't that counter-productive if we are ever to have a dialog that results in some sort of positive understanding?

That's my opinion, per the OP. Not a good idea.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Our President and his family are not currently living in his Chicago home.

We lived in Arlington for several years. We had friends who lived in Georgetown in one of those quaint old homes. What doesn't look like everywhere else often belongs to Embassy staff, Whitehouse staff and lobbyists as well as business people. Definitely second tier. It's not like they live on Foxhall Road where I have seen armed guards and gun emplacements along with uniformed nannies.

It has been proven time and again that the "cross-hairs" had nothing to do with the psychotic who shot Gabby Giffords but there are a lot of sick people out there. He had been preparing to kill her for a long time.

Why do you approve of making an easy target out of families? Many of their homes are purchased or leased under other names to try to maintain some sort of safe and private life. How would you feel if the YouTube videos were of Democrat congressperson's homes and families? Do you really want to live in a country where in order to serve in politics, you must be prepared to sacrifice a child or two or where you must live in your own private little fiefdom like the Kennedy clan?


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Why do you approve of making an easy target out of families?

How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion? Again, anybody who wants to find out where a politician lives, the information is readily available, if not publicized by the guy himself, complete with photos of him/herself plastered all over the TV with the happy kids. Showing those American Family Values.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Hmmm...

It's OK to do anonymous harm to US workers, and inflame a nutcase to shoot Gabrielle, but this is bad.

Of course it is, but fire is often fought with fire. If you are going to war against your fellow citizens, how safe should you feel in your own country?

If you make choices, with power entrusted to you, to enrich yourself by turning your own country into a banana republic or third world one, do you really still expect to feel secure in it? Is the country still really yours, or are you a turncoat and traiter, simply relying on the protections of the officials your corporate handlers have bought?

And why should those handlers not turn on you as well, when you are more easily replaced by someone or something less costly?

These are questions these "victims" should be asking themselves, imo.

Yes, it will be bad if anyone actually comes to harm. It was also bad when Gabrielle was shot, and when a father of five killed his family when both he and his wife lost the jobs with which they were supporting their five children.

Actions have consequences, and harmful actions tend to have harmful ones. Why should the harm be limited to the victims of the selfish actions? Why not to those who are making the decisions which are harming others?

There is a segment of any society which is willing to manipulate the law to its own advantage, irregardless of the harm to others. These people are poison to a society, and if lesser measures fail, what is left?


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

I have no problem demonstrating at someones home as political expression. I do have a problem with this as it comes off as creepy. One is political expression the other comes off as stalking. An adult form of annoying a sibling by staring at them. It has the same social quality as dialing someone & then hanging up it is used to intimidate in a form of social aggression. Unfortunately it's legal to stalk public figures to their homes. Jackie Onasis took this to court years ago & got an order that Ron Gallela must remain 50 ft from her & 75 ft from her children.
With my 70-300MM lens I can get a great detailed shot of you at that distance.
When shes in town there are sometime photographers hiding in our outer lobby trying to get pictures of Sandra Bullock who owns a house next door, cursing them out has no affect it's the same as saying good morning.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

I have no problem demonstrating at someones home as political expression. I do have a problem with this as it comes off as creepy.

I agree. Democrats shouldn't lower themselves to their level.

There was no need to go out and gather footage, they could have used existing footage to make their point. Tons of it out there.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Jul 15, 12 at 6:36

Why do you approve of making an easy target out of families?

.....why (and how) do you reach this conclusion? I just read over the entire thread and did not see anyone "approving", and I disagree with the tactics used but then you know that since it is what I and others said.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

I agree it's creepy as i said but jumping to danger is a presumption of a violent Democratic mob out to pull poor/wealthy republicans from their home.
Primary addresses are always available bu are not necessarily always correct as the Current GOP presidential candidate has show us. Belmont Mass, park City Utah oppps sorry clerks mistake.
Belmont Mass or Lake Winnipesaukee New Hampshire it's such a problem with so many homes.
For Congress members of Congress no longer are required to live in the districts they represent.
Now that I think about it there would be some cases where a video would be useful. It would be useful if the home were obviously not a farm but the owner was getting farm subsidies I remember now a video was helpful in a case like that.
In fact Fox ran a story about celebrities that included video of their properties it never disputed the veracity of their claims they just let the viewer assume that they performers maybe hoodwinking the tax man.
Seems Bon Jovi got property tax break for raising honey bees & Bruce Springsteen got a tax break for raising horses & organic farming on some of his property.
On the flip side MSNBC listed & showed some clips of I sell wood farms that got tax breaks for GOP politicians.
ep it's creepy to do it if you don';t know what the intention of doing it is but that's a big leap of a small step to claim danger.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Take a good look, America.

The party of our president, the Democrat party, has begun to stalk your elected GOP representatives for their political beliefs.

What has happened to us? What has happened to settling our differences at the ballot box?

This is what "hope and change" has done to us. Like gang bangers pushing drugs and prostitution, Democrats are now officially invading our peaceful neighborhoods, inviting outsiders to roam once-safe streets, and daring residents to challenge them. These are the actions of thugs.

Think about the sheer desperation behind the behavior. What kind of legitimate "leaders" get behind efforts to intimidate Republican officials by leading Democrat malcontents straight to their doors? These thugs have done everything but light the fuse.

Bottom line: The internal polling for Democrats must be truly horrendous.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

Take a good look, America.

The party of our president, the Democrat party, has begun to stalk your elected GOP representatives for their political beliefs.

What has happened to us? What has happened to settling our differences at the ballot box?

This is what "hope and change" has done to us. Like gang bangers pushing drugs and prostitution, Democrats are now officially invading our peaceful neighborhoods, inviting outsiders to roam once-safe streets, and daring residents to challenge them. These are the actions of thugs.

Think about the sheer desperation behind the behavior. What kind of legitimate "leaders" get behind efforts to intimidate Republican officials by leading Democrat malcontents straight to their doors? These thugs have done everything but light the fuse.

Bottom line: The internal polling for Democrats must be truly horrendous.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

"Like gang bangers pushing drugs and prostitution, Democrats are now officially invading our peaceful neighborhoods".

You forgot "dark-skinned" and/or "swarthy".


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

nik: I wouldn't "go there" if I were you. Not until you have read "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative". Then come back and tell me how honorable your party is.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

You forgot "dark-skinned" and/or "swarthy".

Sorry. Color wasn't on my mind. Grandma doesn't care. My grandchildren are the most adorable children on the planet, darker than Obama, yet nobody aside from DEMOCRATS gives a ratsass. Take your Democrat bigotry to somebody who appreciates it. I don't. My highly educated DIL doesn't. Get over what color people are, and get on with your life. We have. See if you can catch up with us.


 o
RE: The LA Times posted this. Your opinion, please.

What has happened to settling our differences at the ballot box?

Ask the Republicans. Ask them why they have been determined since Day 1 to fight this administration and not let America prosper? They announced early on that they wanted him to FAIL. And people like you cheered.

Yet, in many ways when Obama fails, so does America.

Ask them why they couldn't help America and the American people when the people needed them the most. Why they tried (and succeeded) to tarnish the credit rating of the US Government?

They flushed our hope right down the toilet. Thanks for the change YOUR party brought to politics - thanks for creating the most divisive Congress ever.

Yes, take a good look, America. And vote for the Democrat.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here