And whatever you do, don't go stealing signs. In Kansas City, an anti-2 homeowner is fed up with the tomfoolery. KMBC reports:
Whether it was a teenage prank or a political ploy, homeowner Shaun Jones videotaped someone taking campaign signs from his front yard on Northwest 87th Terrace early Monday morning.
"That's the only one they bothered," Jones told KMBC's Natalie Moultrie.
The video showed a group taking all 11 of his "Vote No on Amendment 2" signs.
"What have I done other than say this is what I feel, what I believe and how I'm going to vote?" Jones said.
Jones said it is the second time in a week someone has taken his signs. After the first sign disappeared, Jones set up his surveillance camera.
"It's kind of humorous. Part of me wanted to catch them and say, 'Hey, stop acting childish, vote the way you want to vote,'" Jones said.
But what you can't see on the tape is that whoever took the signs also decorated Jones' front tree with toilet paper and knocked over a flower pot on the front porch, Moultrie reported.
Jones said that other "vote no" signs in his neighborhood disappeared overnight as well.
"It was a calculated effort. They came to canvass the neighborhood and take signs away from people who want to speak out about an issue," Jones said.
Jones has replaced the stolen signs.
"I didn't want them to take my signs. I want to be able to vote and speak out this way. I feel like that's been taken away from me," Jones said.
Jones said he is giving a copy of his surveillance tape to police since taking political signs from someone's front yard is considered stealing personal property.
It is Halloween. Political yard signs will succumb to tricks. Treat yourself to a few straight pins through the top of your signs and see if that doesn't stop the snatchers.
19 comments:
11 ???
Obviously someone who would find great benefit in stem cell research.
What are political signs but an expression of a homeowner's view on a particular candidate or issue.
But to a politician, or an aspiring politician, they are a public display of support.
There are two schools of thought in displaying signs.
The first is a gradual increase of signs to illustrate increasing support.
The second is a total saturation of signs, all of them up on one day.
Research has shown that after two weeks the signs lose their effectiveness, they become part of the landscape.
Savvy landowners move the signs every two weeks.
For instance: if you have McCaskill, Harpool, Lampe, Coonrod, Amendment 2 signs in your yard, in that order, switch them around, put them in different order.
People will notice something different about your yard and will likely vote for your candidates and issues.
I don't know if this will work for Talent, Champion, Helms, Roark and No on Amendment 2. I never tried it.
Gee, it's great to be retired!
Why would you urge the opposing side not to use their "false talking points" about Amendment 2 when you toss your false talking points around?
The deception Amendment 2 clearly takes advantage of is the issue you raise: cloning. No, there not going to close human beings, that is of course, depending upon when your definition of conception/life begins.
The somatic cell nuclear transfer, either through vitro fertilization blastocysts or from cell reprogramming techniques, is the cloning of that specific embryo.
Will this issue allow for the cloning of humans, well again, that's the same debate that has fueled the abortion issue. But it does allow for the closing of the cells themselves.
It's not a "going to hell" issue. It's a medical issue and one that is confusing. Proponents hype the potential cures playing off the heart strings and leave the complete picture clouded.
But since I raise my voice with an attempt at logic, I'm sure I will be lumped into the "false-talkers" group and made to look like an idiot.
Anon 258: Using the same logic, I suppose you are opposed to cloning bacterial cells in a petri dish, or coning of the human cancer cells, HeLa in a flask for research purposes. Or the cloning of mouse kidney cells for the purpose of cloning viruses? If you so strongly object to "cloning" cells why are you so oblivious to the "cloning" of those human eggs from fertilization past a blastocyst stage to almost to the gastrula stage in in-vitro human fertilization.?
You are aware, arn't you, that those are the cells you are willing to destroy, rather than being put to a possible use in saving lives and human health.
After all Jesus hisself was pretty clear on the medical care of children and adults and the "cloning" in human reproduction.
"But since I raise my voice with an attempt at logic, I'm sure I will be lumped into the "false-talkers" group and made to look like an idiot."
Vindicated?
Is this really Chatter, or have the producers of "Hannity and Colmes" taken over?
Jaaaysus I'll be glad when the election is over and all of this moronic shitslinging subsides...
When my neighbors put up Talent, No on stem cell, Helms etc. I felt compelled to put up my own signs for McCaskill, Yes on stem cell just to cancel him out.
If you have more than one yard sign, I assume that you are a party person and I ignore all of them. If you have just one, then I think you must have a conviction about that candidate. Am I the only one that thinks this way?
I look at multiple yard signs and try to figure out if they're a single party or a combination.
"a few straight pins through the top of your signs and see if that doesn't..."
...lead to a frivolous pain-and-suffering lawsuit and demand the ACLU file a hate-crimes charge, if the sign-snatcher is a Democrat.
If the sign thief is a Republican, they'll just slap a Band-Aid on the finger and move on to the next yard.
Dirty pool is for RepubliCrats.
I have put on the net the article from the NEJM that VD(J) and the opponents of stem cell research "quote mine" to lie to you about the issue.
Ly'in' for Jesus I call it.
Does this sound like an endorsement of what you have heard them say?
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jxstone/Stem Cells.doc
You can clone anything you want John, just not human embryos.
Were you also aware that Amendment 2 allows for the financial compensation for women donors? It says that "valuable consideration" means financial gain or advantage BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE reimbursement for reasonable costs incurred in connection with removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor.
This Amendment is riddled with double-talk and fuzzy language. It's bad news and ranks right up there with John Kerry's ability to tell a joke.
Anon 945:
How wrong can you be and still be able to connect to the net?
As a matter of fact ... the donor PAYS for the eggs ... by virtue of the fact that they are an unused byproduct of in-vitro fertilization. And they PAY a lot --- up to $15,000 dollars for the proceedure none of which is covered by third parties.
Jeeezzzeeee ... what lie are you going to try next?
The link you provide is not where my information and facts come from. I downloaded Amendment 2 off the web and read it.
The quote I provided you was from the Amendment verbatim. The language of the Amendment contains NOTHING about donors paying money to donate their eggs...NOTHING.
I will tell you what the rest of the damn thing says, it also says that NO court can reverse the amendment by ruling that it or any part therein is unconstitutional.
I'm not giving you rightwing talking points...I'm just telling you the way the Amendment itself reads. Maybe you should read it.
Get in touch with the campaigns and put those signs back up
you can get in touch here
http://domorethanvote.org/
Get real anon 329:
Who do you think is going to pay a DONOR for an egg that is available already -- right now -- as a unwanted byproduct of in-vitro fertilization? Because the donor is already pregnant?
Right at this moment there are 450,000 unused and slowly degrading fertilized eggs in existence because they wern't needed. You propose that we flush them rather than use them for the benefit of humanity.
Where is your love of the fetus ... I won't ask about your love of the born ...?
And indeed I have read the proposal, and I have the added benefit of being a biological scientist, with a Ph. D., and actually understand what is being done both now and are the thoughts in the future.
Whoa! Doctor John sees into the thoughts in the future! Better listen to what he says!
Give me a freaking break.
Instead of a break ... try Bio 101...
Do you really have f****** breaks. Nice workplace. Maybe the girls at work wouldn't mind if you passed their names along.
"And indeed I have read the proposal, and I have the added benefit of being a biological scientist, with a Ph. D., and actually understand what is being done both now and are the thoughts in the future."
Sorry, Doctor, but that sentence sounds like you may have done a little too much LSD research, back at the institute.
"Sorry, Doctor, but that sentence sounds like you may have done a little too much LSD research, back at the institute."
It's good to see that your goofy, spin/lies/save Georgesassatany cost/ has ended.
Perhaps I did do a tab or two. But at least I grew up and stopped doing it before I got on someone's elses blog and proved it fried your brain and made you think like VD(J).
Are you sure I don't remind you of the Hitler Zombie, or am a nazi, or commie, which is about the same thing. Being a murderer really doesn't bother me like it used to.
Post a Comment