NRCC is proud of their idea to create fake Dem websites

[The Big Dog]

Hey right wingers - instead of going to the site and reading only the headline, try actually reading what they are referring to.

face palm.

 

[jj]

Well, there's the face facebook site the guy from New England who set up a fake site for his opponent (yes, his opponent was the Democrat), and started to speak for the guy, while his own site kept pointing out the stupidity.

For some reason, this kind of impersonation is not a crime. It needs to be.

 

[DavidJames]

face palm.

If you have nothing constructive or helpful to say, perhaps communicating with adults is something you should reconsider doing.

 

[The_Animus]

16.5 at what point does something like this become no longer acceptable in your eyes? Should I have to wade through 10, 50, 100 pages of text to find one line that let's me know the entire thing is bogus?

What if that text is put in really small letters at the bottom and in a colored text which nearly mirrors the background color such that it's practically impossible to see? It's probably my fault for not using a magnifying glass or highlighting the entire webpage just in case they use such dirty tricks.

What about if it's not on the website at all but hidden as a note inside the source text? Is that the responsibility of the user to check all that to make extra sure?

So really? At what point does it become blatantly dishonest and unacceptable?

I bet it's when democrats do it.

16.5's choice to ignore this question but respond to others is quite telling.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you have nothing constructive or helpful to say, perhaps communicating with adults is something you should reconsider doing.

Is that where you butted in and called people "right wingers" for responding to an unfounded accusation, without addressing the unfounded accusation? Huh, takes notes how "adults" do it.

16.5's choice to ignore this question but respond to others is quite telling.

It wasn't a question. It was a series of ridiculous hypotheticals followed up with the statement: "I bet it's when democrats do it."

Your hypotheticals are not worth dignifying with an answer.

Thanks for following up though!

 

[NoahFence]

Avid readers saw a perfectly acceptable question in there.

 

[Foolmewunz]

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/naacp-bring-photo-id-protest-photo-id-laws



I find humor in those who talk out of both sides of their mouth, or design a butterfly ballot that suppresses votes and then complain about voter suppression by ID laws.

You?

Perhaps this is why they refer to conservatives as "humor-challenged". You don't actually see the difference between perhaps needing a photo ID if you might possibly be arrested (demonstrations have often run afoul of The Man, bro) and needing one to vote? One is the practical exigency of the law and the other is a new hurdle being placed on people where it hadn't existed.

 

[Olowkow]

Perhaps this is why they refer to conservatives as "humor-challenged". You don't actually see the difference between perhaps needing a photo ID if you might possibly be arrested (demonstrations have often run afoul of The Man, bro) and needing one to vote? One is the practical exigency of the law and the other is a new hurdle being placed on people where it hadn't existed.

Thanks for that. I associate from time to time with some old friends who keep spewing stories like this one and others from especially Fox, and Limbaugh and countless other sources of misinformation. I am at the point where I now don't even argue with them any more. There is no point, since their need for this often hateful input is almost a type of addiction or short term palliative relief from reality. There is some racism, but fundamentally good, intelligent, salt-of-the-earth, church-going people, politically obsessed with past phobias I guess. Difficult to comprehend the deep divisions in US politics sometimes.

I used to think that for some at least, their apparent belief in this kind of nonsense was just passive aggressive expression of anger and group unity, and that they didn't really honestly misunderstand the significance of these stories. No, they believe this stuff.

"Obama Phones" (spent billions on free phones for ghetto drug pushers) was a big one that a lot of right wingers fell for. Informing them of the facts merely pushed the problem back, in their minds, one level, "Well, he's done a lot of other things...etc". "He's just a _____". Fill in blank.

I can imagine the traction that the present story concerning ID's could get among some who just can't seem to read between the lines. I'm sure I'll hear it sooner or later at one of our lunch group get togethers.

 

[NoahFence]

"Obama Phones" (spent billions on free phones for ghetto drug pushers)

Ah, an old classic conservatard lie.

Obama is the 1st president since Regan to not even have a hand in that program.

 

[Chaos]

Avid readers saw a perfectly acceptable question in there.

Perhaps it should have been hidden behind a big, fat "Donate" button?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Funny, I thought honesty was a virtue, not a weakness reserved for losers.

Lie and dishonesty are the only things the GOP has now....

I forgot voter suppression.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lie and dishonesty are the only things the GOP has now....

I forgot voter suppression.

They also have the dedicated few that attack anyone who saying anything remotely negative about them. They stick out like a bullfrog in a bowl of soup.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They also have the dedicated few that attack anyone who saying anything remotely negative about them. They stick out like a bullfrog in a bowl of soup.

Any means to the end, that's the GOP.

 

[NoahFence]

Anything to avoid answering the simple question, "how much is too much" as it pertains to GOP dishonesty.

 

[Mike!]

They also have the dedicated few that attack anyone who saying anything remotely negative about them. They stick out like a bullfrog in a bowl of soup.

What if it's bullfrog soup?

 

[BenBurch]

Anything to avoid answering the simple question, "how much is too much" as it pertains to GOP dishonesty.

No amount is too much IF THEY WIN.

 

[The Big Dog]

No amount is too much IF THEY WIN.

And as we have seen in this thread, no amount of clear, unmistakable language is too much to have "THEY" complain about it.

Hilarious overwrought thread is hilarious.

 

[BenBurch]

And as we have seen in this thread, no amount of clear, unmistakable language is too much to have "THEY" complain about it.

Hilarious overwrought thread is hilarious.

Not hilarious. This is crossing the line into sleaze.

But of course, you're A-OK with it so long as you win. That's all that matters.

 

[NoahFence]

Not hilarious. This is crossing the line into sleaze.

But of course, you're A-OK with it so long as you win. That's all that matters.

Avid readers are still waiting to see where that line actually is!

(or even if it exists at all)

 

[The Big Dog]

Not hilarious. This is crossing the line into sleaze.

But of course, you're A-OK with it so long as you win. That's all that matters.

What is sleazy? A web site clearly and solely devoted to defeating political opponents, or the over the top reactions that are based on patent misrepresentations of the web sites content, and are further based on the assumption that the people visiting the site are woefully and actively ignorant?

What if the Democrats did the same thing to a republican candidate from Montana? My answer would be the same as I gave on page 1: "I on the other hand don't think that democrats Republicans from Montana are idiots, which seems to be the assumption in this thread."