Tuesday, October 08, 2013

NJ.: Graffiti on campaign signs sparks outrage in Edison

It is hard to get bothered by this when GOP election signs are routinely destroyed or removed by Leftists.  It's the Left who set the tone for this.  Civility is for others, not for them, it would seem

Appalled and outraged. That is what township officials and police said they felt after learning of the racial slurs scrawled across campaign signs for Dr. Sudhanshu on the morning of Sept. 23.

“These are dastardly acts,” said Prasad, adding that there is no room for hate in a diverse town such as Edison, or anywhere.

He stressed that this had nothing to do with the November election in which Prasad is running for mayor against incumbent Antonia Ricigliano and three other candidates.

The campaign signs that stood side by side were defaced with a swastika and derogatory words used against Asian- Indians. The words “Never in Edison” were written on one sign. All were done in red spray paint.

The two signs, which are 4 feet by 4 feet, were located at a home on the corner of Cherry Street and Old Post Road. Now they are lodged at the campaign headquarters of Prasad and his team on Main Street.

Prasad and his campaign team joined Ricigliano, Police Chief Thomas Bryan and members of the community, including the Asian-Indian and Jewish communities, to denounce the acts at a press conference held outside the home on Sept. 23.



Use the Name, Luke said...

Given the history of leftists trying to prove the right is racist by doing committing racist acts they think we should be doing, it seems likely that this is yet another false flag operation performed by a leftist.

Anonymous said...

Luke, I second that thought!

I the left can't find racism, they will invent it!

Anonymous said...

I do not think it's a false flag, lefties are known racists (it's a fundamental part of their nature) so I suspect we have a leftist on leftist action going on here.

Anonymous said...

It is typical of you people to make fact from conjecture. The religious right is good at that.

Anonymous said...

"The religious right is good at that."

LOL, leave it to one of Satans children to inject religion into a comment that is about race, not about religion.

As for the story, it's a common practice for leftists to do this kind of thing. We have seen endless examples of their lies and treachery.

Anonymous said...

Facts are the natural enemy of the right wing.

Anonymous said...

"It is hard to get bothered by this when GOP election signs are routinely destroyed or removed by Leftists."

So because there are instances of this type of thing occurring to one of ours, it is not as important, as a matter of principle, to be upset about instances of this type.

As a long time reader of this site, I usually don't reply too often to comments such as these. However, in this instance, I cannot keep silent, nor do I think I can visit this site any longer.

Regardless of the circumstances in this particular occurrence, there is a certain short-sightedness and mean spiritedness that permeates this site when it comes to some of the posts on this site. These types of events, until there is proof to the contrary, should be looked upon with scorn; not only because the act itself is cowardly and rude, it destroys personal property and likely involved trespassing on private property as well. If it turns out that, in fact, this was perpetrated by the supposed victim, then the appropriate legal remedies should be allowed to run their course. Were there any additional information to lead to such a conclusion, then perhaps your initial comment could be seen as having some merit. In this case, with so little information, your comment comes off as arrogant and ridiculous in the most juvenile sense.

After spending years reading this site, I now turn my back on it for what I can only describe as your increasing "us verses them" mentality and how you allow it to color your view of free speech.

Before coming to this decision, I decided to go over some of your previous entries and see if perhaps I was being unduly harsh, however, when I came across your posting from March 6th, of this year, I concluded that I should have left much sooner.

The fact that you would accept a man in his position "probably spoke the truth in saying so" regarding his sexual comments to a young girl is sickening in a way that makes me question your proclivities more than the man who originally made the comments. Comments which he has continually denied, but you believe that if true are entirely appropriate.

That along with the general slide into showcasing stories that continue a partisan battle rather than fighting for the cause of free expression is the reason why I will not be coming back to visit this site any longer.

As I have mentioned before, you are well within your right to post such things and to make any statement you wish to make. However, as a reader, I do not need to participate in these efforts any longer. I have enjoyed readying many stories and can attest you initially made my resolve for free speech greater, but to now, in my estimation, see it twisted for partisan reasons is more than I can bare.

I would normally wish you success in all your endeavors, however, your comments in the March 6th article are so deeply disturbing to me that I cannot. I can only hope that you eventually see the error of your ways in how you view the world.

-nick p

Anonymous said...

I have also wondered why I bother reading comments on this site. Maybe because it never ceases to amaze me that adults could be so infantile. I don't know why a site that is supposed to be just about free-speech should be angled in favor of just conservative and traditionalist viewpoints, and then attract comments by so many very mean-spirited bigots, many of whom are over-the-top rightists, xenophobes, homophobes and fundy "Christians".

Bird of Paradise said...

Obama on THE HOLE IN THE WALL a hole shaped like hammer & psycle

President Not Sure said...

Nick, where do you read articles where they are absolutely neitral on all topics? I read the articles and comments at dozens of sites on both sides of the political spectrum.. Most often than not there is a post like yours responding to a conservative using the word "liberal" in a way that could be construed as demeaning as if that was the height of uncivilty. That would be noble if the 500 previous comments were not talking about how "those racist tea baggers have my nuts in their mouth".

But you are right. This article today, and that other one 7 months ago in March is definitely indicative of a severely conservative bias here at this site. Unfortunately for those on the left, reality most often proves us to be correct so I have no issues with sites that lean to the right.

Anonymous said...

President Not Sure,

where do you read articles where they are absolutely neitral(sic) on all topics?

I have never asked that there be absolute neutrality in regards to the type of content on this site. In fact, because this is explicitly an advocacy site, that would be impossible to have any sense of neutrality when it comes to the highlighted stories that are chosen.

Rather the reason for my comment (and please excuse me for not being as concise as I hoped), was to point out that before even getting into the story, Jon had decided that while this story had occurred and was worthy of discussion, it had less value because the person who was the victim in this case was not someone who aligned with his views politically. And worse, because this type of vandalism occurs with people who do agree with his various points of view, that somehow in this instance, the crime should not be as great a cause for alarm as it might otherwise be. Do you really not see a problem with this line of thought? Or how short-sighted it can be when it comes to attempting to live in a society with those whom we do not agree with?

Most(sic) often than not there is a post like yours responding to a conservative using the word "liberal" in a way that could be construed as demeaning as if that was the height of uncivilty(sic). That would be noble if the 500 previous comments were not talking about how "those racist tea baggers have my nuts in their mouth".

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this or exactly what sentiment you are attempting to get across. I have not attempted to demean anyone nor have I used vulgarity in any of my posts. However, you appear to be making an argument of moral equivalency: If there are those who have a legitimate grievance and make note of it, it is offset by those who have made their grievances known in a less than civil manner. I reject this theory, not only because shuts down debate between those whose arguments truly have merit and deserve additional scrutiny, but also because it elevates those whose comments are less than respectable and allows the lowest common denominator to control the debate.

This article today...is definitely indicative of a severely conservative bias here at this site.

I have no problem with a bias in either direction so long as that bias is not used in such a mean-spirited and short sighted way. The argument I made had nothing to do with the political affiliation with either the victims or perpetrators of the crime in question. Rather I was upset that jonjayray allowed his political affiliation to deaden his compassion for an individual who was the victim of a crime. It should not matter who was attacked, rather that an attack took place. Especially when that attack is on something as fundamental to the fabric of our country as speech; in this case exemplified through the use of campaign signage. Also, my complaint stems from the fact that the stated purpose of this site is to expose those who would use power through various means to stifle/suppress free speech. Again, this is the stated goal of this site. When you allow your own biases to limit your ability to feel compassion or indignation at a crime, then there is a problem with not only the site, but your ability to properly address the issue at hand. And this is standard was not put in place by me, but by the site's owner.

As I mentioned, I have been coming to this site for years and it has been a place I have enjoyed visiting from time to time. I express my frustration not to belittle or demean, but I hope, however infinitesimally, that I can provide a mirror so that he is aware of what I perceive to be his growing obsession with his own point of view to the exclusion of those with whom he disagrees. And in a previous post, I noted how he cheered the suppression of speech he did not agree with and was aghast at such a notion. If jonjayray continues down this path, I would find it simultaneously sad and ironic.


-nick p

Anonymous said...


... that other one 7 months ago in March is definitely indicative of a severely conservative bias here at this site.

I abbreviated this particular section above, because I felt it required special attention. The idea that it is acceptable from a "conservative bias" to sexualize a child and then remark on that sexualization only serves to prove that the bias blinds you from what is otherwise a morally reprehensible act. I truly believe in the cause of free speech, but there are consequences for your actions. And when your actions include commenting in a sexual way on the body of a child, then I feel that there is a certain amount of professional and public punishment required. In this situation, it was not as though the man in question did not know who he was commenting on. He was fully aware of the situation and chose to say what he said in full view of the general public, but most unforgivable, to the girl herself. As a father, brother, and uncle, I cannot abide by what was said. And for jonjayray, not only to gloss over, but to say that he may have been correct in his statement makes me wonder what feelings are stirred in him when he sees children on the street, as does your defense of it.

I have no problem with biases. We all have them and they help us to run our lives so we are not bogged down every step of the way with the minutiae regarding every act we make. It allows us to make quick and simple judgements. But we must not allow those biases create the sense that we are so fully correct in our assessments that we are never wrong.

And finally, I know that I said I would not return to this site, but a friend of mine had seen this comment and knew that I would not be able to let it lie. She was correct.

-nick p