Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Still can't stop laughing...




And before someone shouts "out of context" here or subtle editing here... just watch it.

But really... are we really that surprised that they wouldn't put up that sign?

Who's O Keefe and why should I care?

He's the guy who does the undercover videos. Took down ACORN, etc.

I'm not sure why folks don't want the sign.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's O Keefe and why should I care?

You can find out who here is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

As for why you should care, that's up to you to decide.

 Seaward wrote:

I'm not sure why folks don't want the sign.

My sarcas-o-meter must be broken... but that's the point.

This is hilarious

I'm going to start up a "Citizens against Senseless Signs" organization. We'll go around and offer to remove senseless signs from people's houses. Probably tailing these people.

 Seaward wrote:
He's the guy who does the undercover videos. Took down ACORN, etc.

The computer company?

I'm not sure why folks don't want the sign.

Probably because people don't want to put signs in their garden... about anything really. They just want a quiet life. Or maybe it's because if they put the sign up they'll be attacked by mobs of gun wielding druggies bent on stealing everything you own. It looks like that sort of neighbourhood really.

You have a lot of armed guards on residential properties in america.

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's O Keefe and why should I care?

He is a psuedo-journalist who couldn't become famous on his merits so hit aimed for the low hanging fruit of the less intelligent conservatives by feeding them what they want to hear by editing and doctoring videos then going on FOX news, and then hiding before it comes out that he is full of gak only to pop up again later with another bit of edited wankery knowing they forgot that he lied and exaggerated last time. It usually works too. He's a lot like Michael Moore, only less credible. I wouldn't believe such a thing possible, but here we are.

And you shouldn't care. In the slightest.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Who's O Keefe and why should I care?

He is a psuedo-journalist who couldn't become famous on his merits so hit aimed for the low hanging fruit of the less intelligent conservatives by feeding them what they want to hear by editing and doctoring videos then going on FOX news, and then hiding before it comes out that he is full of gak only to pop up again later with another bit of edited wankery knowing they forgot that he lied and exaggerated last time. It usually works too. He's a lot like Michael Moore, only less credible. I wouldn't believe such a thing possible, but here we are.

And you shouldn't care. In the slightest.

Did ya watch it?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The computer company?

No, the liberal community organizing group.

Probably because people don't want to put signs in their garden... about anything really. They just want a quiet life. Or maybe it's because if they put the sign up they'll be attacked by mobs of gun wielding druggies bent on stealing everything you own. It looks like that sort of neighbourhood really.

You have a lot of armed guards on residential properties in america.

I think, though I'm not certain, the people asked were those who championed the publishing of the names and addresses of gun owners by a New York newspaper.

 Seaward wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


You have a lot of armed guards on residential properties in america.

I think, though I'm not certain, the people asked were those who championed the publishing of the names and addresses of gun owners by a New York newspaper.

May as well put out signs saying "the door is unlocked, we have no alarm and $50,000 worth of easily hocked electronics".

So they'll happily "out" people who do own guns (as a psa to anyone wanting to burgle/home invade, etc. We don't want their civil rights being infringed by being shot and all.) but strangely people who don't own guns were averse to having a big "target" sign on their lawns. Go figure.

 chromedog wrote:
So they'll happily "out" people who do own guns (as a psa to anyone wanting to burgle/home invade, etc. We don't want their civil rights being infringed by being shot and all.) but strangely people who don't own guns were averse to having a big "target" sign on their lawns. Go figure.

Well, this is Jimmy O'Keefe, so who knows what really happened. He's got less credibility than Lance Armstrong - for all you know, dozens of people took the signs and they just didn't make the final cut. That's the problem when you build a career on lie after lie, eventually the only people that believe you are people who are predisposed to believe what you're selling and disinclined to provide any critical thinking.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Probably because people don't want to put signs in their garden... about anything really. They just want a quiet life. Or maybe it's because if they put the sign up they'll be attacked by mobs of gun wielding druggies bent on stealing everything you own. It looks like that sort of neighbourhood really.

Having worked on door to door canvassing operations, the rate of acceptance for any proposal that isn't "Here, take this 50 dollar bill." is something like 1-3% depending on the person at point of contact (middle-aged women have the best overall response rate). This include simple things like putting up yard signs in support of a politician, signing a petition, putting up advertising for a group that's done work on your home, or really anything that involves interacting with a stranger; especially groups of strangers*. As such, what we're seeing is the demonstration of a truism regarding door to door advertising and advocacy.



*People tend to feel pressured or threatened when outnumbered. I imagine O'Keefe knew this, which is why he decided to roll 4-deep, it would minimize his overall response rate.

Actually a home on the Journal New's "gun owners" list was just targeted for a burglary and the target was their gun safe. So expect a lovely law suit on that shortly.

 dogma wrote:
*People tend to feel pressured or threatened when outnumbered. I imagine O'Keefe knew this, which is why he decided to roll 4-deep, it would minimize his overall response rate.

I didn't know that as a rule, but it does make sense. I'd be alarmed to see a crowd of people on my porch no matter what they wanted.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Actually a home on the Journal New's "gun owners" list was just targeted for a burglary and the target was their gun safe. So expect a lovely law suit on that shortly.

I assume they'll claim negligence, though we'll see if they can establish duty of care.

 dogma wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Probably because people don't want to put signs in their garden... about anything really. They just want a quiet life. Or maybe it's because if they put the sign up they'll be attacked by mobs of gun wielding druggies bent on stealing everything you own. It looks like that sort of neighbourhood really.

Having worked on door to door canvassing operations, the rate of acceptance for any proposal that isn't "Here, take this 50 dollar bill." is something like 1-3% depending on the person at point of contact (middle-aged women have the best overall response rate). This include simple things like putting up yard signs in support of a politician, signing a petition, putting up advertising for a group that's done work on your home, or really anything that involves interacting with a stranger; especially groups of strangers*. As such, what we're seeing is the demonstration of a truism regarding door to door advertising and advocacy.



*People tend to feel pressured or threatened when outnumbered. I imagine O'Keefe knew this, which is why he decided to roll 4-deep, it would minimize his overall response rate.

That's interesting... I'd suspect they'd get different reactions if only one or two canvassed this scenario...

I'm sure that the counts are wrong... as someone would've taken those signs. There were always folks who would naïvetély believe that they're "protected" if everyone plays by the same rules....

Sigh.

Why oh why will Americans refuse to accept that making it a constitutional right for civilians to carry weapons is a VERY BAD IDEA?

I mean...really...

Because its not a bad idea. A bad idea is forcibly disarming lawabiding citizens and leaving guns only in the hands of criminals, who won't be following the laws.

All debate about gun control aside, there is exactly zero reason to repost James O'Keefe stuff here. The guy is a self-serving, lying donkey-cave and by spreading his stuff around you're only encouraging him and any other douchebags to continue to drag down the national debate with their nonsense.

 sebster wrote:
All debate about gun control aside, there is exactly zero reason to repost James O'Keefe stuff here. The guy is a self-serving, lying donkey-cave and by spreading his stuff around you're only encouraging him and any other douchebags to continue to drag down the national debate with their nonsense.

Er... in this case... how was it bad?

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Sigh.

Why oh why will Americans refuse to accept that making it a constitutional right for civilians to carry weapons is a VERY BAD IDEA?

I mean...really...

Says the Brit. Its why you guys lost and the globe is now utterly dominated by the Colossus striding the known world, the colossus that is Texas!

 whembly wrote:
Er... in this case... how was it bad?

I can't watch it now, so I didn't. But the guy's track record is so poor is so poor that you just cannot trust anything he puts up on screen. To get any useful information out of it you'd have to examine and fact check every moment to avoid being hoodwinked, because his record shows he just isn't presenting his case in good faith. Just read the findings in the ACORN case, the judge is quite clear that O'Keefe's video is a work of almost complete fiction (he heavily edited it so that responses given to mundane questions were instead represented as being to outrageous pimping questions, for example).

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Er... in this case... how was it bad?

I can't watch it now, so I didn't. But the guy's track record is so poor is so poor that you just cannot trust anything he puts up on screen. To get any useful information out of it you'd have to examine and fact check every moment to avoid being hoodwinked, because his record shows he just isn't presenting his case in good faith. Just read the findings in the ACORN case, the judge is quite clear that O'Keefe's video is a work of almost complete fiction (he heavily edited it so that responses given to mundane questions were instead represented as being to outrageous pimping questions, for example).

Okay... just watch it when you can (you can ignore their "scoring")... and you'll see what I mean.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Sigh.

Why oh why will Americans refuse to accept that making it a constitutional right for civilians to carry weapons is a VERY BAD IDEA?

I mean...really...

Says the Brit. Its why you guys lost and the globe is now utterly dominated by the Colossus striding the known world, the colossus that is China!

Fixed that for you.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Sigh.

Why oh why will Americans refuse to accept that making it a constitutional right for civilians to carry weapons is a VERY BAD IDEA?

I mean...really...

This felt fitting.