talkpolitics | Note Found In Vandalized Classroom: "A Republican Was Here."

Boston Herald.com

When the teacher, Paul Clifford, returned to his classroom Monday morning, he discovered that a collage depicting the history of the labor movement was missing. In its place, someone had left a bumper sticker reading: 'Working People Vote Republican.'

Caucus members also apparently looked inside a closed cardboard box near Clifford’s desk that contained copies of the U.S. Constitution donated by the American Civil Liberties Union. Clifford later discovered a note left behind reading, 'A Republican was here. What gives you the right to propagandize impressionable kids?' according to an account in the Portland Press Herald.

A public school in Maine allowed a contingent of Republicans to meet in their classrooms over a weekend. The result was a rifled and vandalized classroom and stolen materials.

It’s nice to know that the Maine Republican Party had the grace to apologize:

Villagesoup:

The Maine Republican Party does not condone the destruction of property nor does it encourage the lack of tolerance that these people demonstrated. Over 900 other people attended these caucuses without incident and I hope that the actions of few do not tarnish the image of many. We appreciate the hospitality of the staff from the King Middle School and hope to work with them again in the future. We sincerely apologize to the faculty and student body at King Middle School.

The problem is, that same contingent rooting around and looting the classroom – the Knox County Republicans -- is influential enough to have replaced the Republican Party Platform with one more to the liking of Tea Party activists.

In short, the vandals are the ones writing the party platform in that state.

But they're just a fringe group right? I mean, just because they're actually writing the Maine Republican Party platform doesn't mean anything. Right?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The fact that the Maine Republican party apologized and promised to return the poster is a pretty big indication that this was not just some hooligans who broke in after the meeting.

In otherwords, no there isn't. You're supposing that based on your own expectations and not even considering that if it was just a couple of hooligans, the response would be exactly the same.

I'm supposing based on the overwhelming evidence, and by the fact that the Republican Party considered it likely enough to have apologized for the theft and promise to return the poster.

No, you aren't. You think that's why they're apologizing and you won't consider any other options.

Chapman said he was unaware who took the poster or left the sticker. He said he understands the poster would be returned or replaced.

That's not the same as them saying that they will return it or that anyone significant did it. Seriously, your reinterpretation of facts is consistently warped.

Then how did he know it would be returned?

From the second link:

"On May 12, the state office announced the poster was being returned but did not identify who took the poster."

There's no date on when the event took place. The apology was given on May 11 and then on May 12 a staffer said that it would be returned. Obviously, the person who took it gave it to them, and that could have happened on May 11 or May 12. None of that says anything about the status of the person who took it.

g:Obviously, the person who took it gave it to them.

And why would they do that?

They likely had it communicated to them that they needed to give it back. I'm sure they had a list of everyone who was there.

And why would the Maine Republican Party be in contact with "hooligans" unrelated to the party who broke in after the event that weekend? And have a list that enabled them to "communicate" with them?

Have you completely lost track of your end of this argument?

No, but you apparently have. No one said that they were unconnected people who broke in later.

So what kind of connection do you envision?

It was probably someone who attended the meeting.

Since that's been my premise from the beginning, what's your problem with my post?

(no subject)

gunslnger.livejournal.com - 2010-05-17 19:12 (UTC) - Expand

paft.livejournal.com - 2010-05-18 05:38 (UTC) - Expand

gunslnger.livejournal.com - 2010-05-18 08:07 (UTC) - Expand

paft.livejournal.com - 2010-05-18 22:49 (UTC) - Expand

gunslnger.livejournal.com - 2010-05-19 08:28 (UTC) - Expand

Or you know, that they had the room booked and after their meeting something happened?

Your assumption doesn't mean anything.

Then how did they get their hands on the poster?

What's your alternate theory?

Learn to do better research:

Christie-Lee McNally, executive director of the Maine Republican Party, struck a more apologetic note. While she has no idea who took Clifford's poster, she said, she'll do everything she can to have it returned or replaced.

Which in la-la-land means that McNally took the poster and has it in her garage and will return it tomorrow.

From the second link:

"On May 12, the state office announced the poster was being returned but did not identify who took the poster."

Yea... that's what's called a secondary source.

Mine's called a primary source.

Really? You spoke to the state heads of the Main Republican Party yourself, did you?

I have a direct uote. You have a reporter's interpretation of the quote.

Your source is weak, mine reigns supreme.

"Your" source?

I provided both.

Exactly what's you're alternate interpretation of the quote?

Your claim that they have the poster is unsupported by primary sources.

What's your alternate interpretation of the quote?

What alternate interpretation? The primary source is quite clear. It can be condensed down to "she will make sure it's returned". But it certainly says she doesn't have it as you've falsely claimed.

paft.livejournal.com - 2010-05-16 18:45 (UTC) - Expand

mrbogey.livejournal.com - 2010-05-16 18:47 (UTC) - Expand

paft.livejournal.com - 2010-05-16 19:04 (UTC) - Expand