WWTBAM Bored

Okay, one comment: learn to spell "following" if you want people to believe you....

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/pho ... ion-flier/

Can somebody tell me what happened to my good friend minimetoo26?

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:Can somebody tell me what happened to my good friend minimetoo26?

lb13

She's sitting out until after Halloween and the election. And she REALLY needs to get away from her little girl to get her head straight.........

littlebeast13 wrote:Can somebody tell me what happened to my good friend minimetoo26?

lb13

Good question!

But, since I rely on a BB's comments to determine if a link is worth clicking on, and all I can surmise from mini's comment is that someone has mispelled a word somewhere (gasp!), there's nothing to see here.

Move along. Move along.

[quote="Hello, Mini!"]Okay, one comment: learn to spell "following" if you want people to believe you....



It wans't me!


I love the comments posted, as if the RNC paid $800,000 to some organization to publish that flier.

Hello, Mini! wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:Can somebody tell me what happened to my good friend minimetoo26?

lb13

She's sitting out until after Halloween and the election. And she REALLY needs to get away from her little girl to get her head straight.........

Drop me off at Uncle Beast's house for a few weeks. I think his squirrel needs a new playmate.....

MarleysGh0st wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:Can somebody tell me what happened to my good friend minimetoo26?

lb13

Good question!

But, since I rely on a BB's comments to determine if a link is worth clicking on, and all I can surmise from mini's comment is that someone has mispelled a word somewhere (gasp!), there's nothing to see here.

Move along. Move along.

It was a flier distributed in our state warning that voting procedure had changed due to heavy traffic, so Republicans were to vote on November 4th and Democrats on November 5th. Official stationery, but misspellings...........

Hello, Mini! wrote:http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/pho ... ion-flier/

Desperate, party of one!

That flier has a hint of racism to it as the people who distributed that flier are attempting to segregate voters--"we real Amurrcans vote on Election Day and 'the rest of you people' vote the day after, when it won't count".

But I do feel sorry for any Democratic voter who is stupid enough to believe that flier.

Hello, Mini! wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:Can somebody tell me what happened to my good friend minimetoo26?

lb13

Good question!

But, since I rely on a BB's comments to determine if a link is worth clicking on, and all I can surmise from mini's comment is that someone has mispelled a word somewhere (gasp!), there's nothing to see here.

Move along. Move along.

It was a flier distributed in our state warning that voting procedure had changed due to heavy traffic, so Republicans were to vote on November 4th and Democrats on November 5th. Official stationery, but misspellings...........

Thanks for the summary. It's so rare that you post a political thread, I shouldn't have picked on you for my "Context-free URL" pet peeve.

Didn't this flyer get circulated four years ago?

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: Good question!

But, since I rely on a BB's comments to determine if a link is worth clicking on, and all I can surmise from mini's comment is that someone has mispelled a word somewhere (gasp!), there's nothing to see here.

Move along. Move along.

It was a flier distributed in our state warning that voting procedure had changed due to heavy traffic, so Republicans were to vote on November 4th and Democrats on November 5th. Official stationery, but misspellings...........

Thanks for the summary. It's so rare that you post a political thread, I shouldn't have picked on you for my "Context-free URL" pet peeve.

Didn't this flyer get circulated four years ago?

No, silly! Four years ago, Election Day was November 2.....

lb13

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: Good question!

But, since I rely on a BB's comments to determine if a link is worth clicking on, and all I can surmise from mini's comment is that someone has mispelled a word somewhere (gasp!), there's nothing to see here.

Move along. Move along.

It was a flier distributed in our state warning that voting procedure had changed due to heavy traffic, so Republicans were to vote on November 4th and Democrats on November 5th. Official stationery, but misspellings...........

Thanks for the summary. It's so rare that you post a political thread, I shouldn't have picked on you for my "Context-free URL" pet peeve.

Didn't this flyer get circulated four years ago?

I don't go digging into the bowels of the internet for my stuff--just what's printed in the local paper. So it's usually straightforward reporting without the tinfoil hat stuff. But I couldn't link to the actual article since you have to log in if you're a subscriber and I doubt you are all the way up there.

I could say they printed a picture of McCain wearing a dress in his youth yesterday, but it was his Christening gown and he was being held by his grandfather. McCain used to live here and was famous for his wild parties in the old days, and there were plenty of old pictures and articles available. He had quite the Navy pedigree, so he was news.

Hello, Mini! wrote:I don't go digging into the bowels of the internet for my stuff--just what's printed in the local paper. So it's usually straightforward reporting without the tinfoil hat stuff. But I couldn't link to the actual article since you have to log in if you're a subscriber and I doubt you are all the way up there.

How do you think I find all those articles about SyndieBAM contestants from all over the country?

Snopes picked this one up.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/voting.asp

Just an observation about this...

I also looked through the thread of comments that follows the article, and you have the usual 'evil Republicans suppressing the vote...' and 'oppression of black voters (the flier was supposedly distributed in black neighborhoods)...' and so on, with one snide comment that only an idiot would fall for it (with a snide comment about which party relies upon idiots for its support).

What strikes me is that it is generally assumed that Republicans-- whether 'officially' or not-- are behind this, and similar things that have popped up in the past, but I wonder if that is really the case? When you think about it, this is something that is obviously totally bogus, it is not well done at all (misspellings and typos abound in this thing and in others like it), and It is was apparently very widely distributed in the 'target' areas to the extent that it was guaranteed to become public knowledge very quickly, with plenty of time BEFORE the election for people to respond to it, and deal with it. So who really benefits from it? With people assuming that the Republicans (whether 'officially' or not) are behind it, all it does is generate a lot of anti-Republican outrage, which is pretty much guaranteed to drive Democratic people (and in particular, the Democratic people who are located in the 'target' areas) to the polls on (the correct) Election Day.

If I were a Republican, and if I really did want to do something like this to suppress voter turnout in what I presumed to be Democratic neighborhoods, I would not distribute this thing this far in advance of the election-- that just allows too much time, and allows people to be informed that this thing is bogus, and to become outraged by it; instead, I would probably drop them all next Monday, the day before the Election, so that the maximum number of people could be fooled, and there would be no time for anyone to respond (this being the tactic that the Los Angeles Times used against Schwartzenegger in the recall election-- running a really nasty story-- that they had sat on for weeks-- just a couple days before the recall, so that it would have the maximum adverse impact, while allowing him a minimum amount of time to respond; or the last minute-- weekend before election day-- report about Bush's DWI that ran in the 2000 election, when, if you will recall, Bush had been leading in all the polls, which suddenly turned against him; if you want to slam someone with something, you wait until the last minute, so that they cannot respond, or explain, you don't give them a week or more to repair the damage). And I'm pretty sure I would do it a lot more professionally (at the very least, it would be printed properly, with proper spellings; Republicans may not do a good job running election campaigns, but they can afford to hire people who can spell).

If the actual perpetrators are ever identified, I would not be at all surprised to find out that this was something that came from 'someone' other than a Republican group or a Republican-affiliated group. Not necessarily an 'official' Democratic group (just as the "Bro's Before Ho's" tee-shirts were not an 'official' Obama put-down of Hillary during the primaries), but some diabolical fringe group that wants to make Republicans look bad.

Reminds me of the reports that came out following the Palin rally a couple weeks ago, when it turned out that no one actually shouted 'Kill Obama,' it was just a reporter-- who, I would bet dollars to donuts, will not be voting McCain/Palin next Tuesday, or next Wednesday, whenever Election Day comes up-- who simply made something up (or, more likely, heard what he wanted to hear, and presented it as 'fact'), that had no purpose other than to make Palin supporters-- and, by extension, the Republicans generally-- look bad.

Or even more recently, the Ashley Todd situation, where the 'McCain Supporter' claimed to have been attacked by (presumably) an Obama supporter: turns out that there was no attack on her by any Obama supporter, but I suspect that she thought that she could accomplish something positive for her side by making the other side look bad.

Lots of hoaxification going on, and lots of times you need to look really close to figure out who the hoaxer is.

I think you're crediting the perpetrators with the same evil genius you dismissed in the whole US citizen deal.

Some people really ARE that gullible. Especially a first-time voter.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/27/pho ... ion-flier/

Desperate, party of one!

That flier has a hint of racism to it as the people who distributed that flier are attempting to segregate voters--"we real Amurrcans vote on Election Day and 'the rest of you people' vote the day after, when it won't count".

But I do feel sorry for any Democratic voter who is stupid enough to believe that flier.

OK- the flier was stupid, but can we LAY OFF the stupid and illogical calls of "racism".

Just friggin' ONCE?

The flier said "Democrats", not "black".

DAMMIT, people like you make me sick.

Experience some REAL racism before you whine.

And if you HAVE experienced real racism already, then you should know better!

Hello, Mini! wrote:Some people really ARE that gullible. Especially a first-time voter.

ABC News had a story last night about the Republican candidate for governor in Washington, who has chosen to be listed on the ballot as the "GOP Party" candidate. His opponents charge that he's trying to distance himself from the national ticket, he dismisses that with the response that "everyone knows that GOP means Republican." (He didn't explain why he bothered, then, if that's the case.) ABC did some man-on-the-street interviews that found that about 25% of voters don't know what GOP means.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:Some people really ARE that gullible. Especially a first-time voter.

ABC News had a story last night about the Republican candidate for governor in Washington, who has chosen to be listed on the ballot as the "GOP Party" candidate. His opponents charge that he's trying to distance himself from the national ticket, he dismisses that with the response that "everyone knows that GOP means Republican." (He didn't explain why he bothered, then, if that's the case.) ABC did some man-on-the-street interviews that found that about 25% of voters don't know what GOP means.

I saw that yesterday.

I wanted to pound my head against the wall...not because of what the guy did, but because 25% of the electorate that decides who will lead the country didn't know what the GOP was.

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:Some people really ARE that gullible. Especially a first-time voter.

ABC News had a story last night about the Republican candidate for governor in Washington, who has chosen to be listed on the ballot as the "GOP Party" candidate. His opponents charge that he's trying to distance himself from the national ticket, he dismisses that with the response that "everyone knows that GOP means Republican." (He didn't explain why he bothered, then, if that's the case.) ABC did some man-on-the-street interviews that found that about 25% of voters don't know what GOP means.

"GOP Party" is like "ATM Machine"! Maybe he should ask for "GOP Candidate" instead.

Was that really 25% of voters? Or just people asked randomly? I mean, both ideas are scary, but the first one is Uber-scary.......

Hello, Mini! wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:Some people really ARE that gullible. Especially a first-time voter.

ABC News had a story last night about the Republican candidate for governor in Washington, who has chosen to be listed on the ballot as the "GOP Party" candidate. His opponents charge that he's trying to distance himself from the national ticket, he dismisses that with the response that "everyone knows that GOP means Republican." (He didn't explain why he bothered, then, if that's the case.) ABC did some man-on-the-street interviews that found that about 25% of voters don't know what GOP means.

"GOP Party" is like "ATM Machine"! Maybe he should ask for "GOP Candidate" instead.

Was that really 25% of voters? Or just people asked randomly? I mean, both ideas are scary, but the first one is Uber-scary.......

You could be right that it was the latter- it was "man on the street"

Jeemie wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: ABC News had a story last night about the Republican candidate for governor in Washington, who has chosen to be listed on the ballot as the "GOP Party" candidate. His opponents charge that he's trying to distance himself from the national ticket, he dismisses that with the response that "everyone knows that GOP means Republican." (He didn't explain why he bothered, then, if that's the case.) ABC did some man-on-the-street interviews that found that about 25% of voters don't know what GOP means.

"GOP Party" is like "ATM Machine"! Maybe he should ask for "GOP Candidate" instead.

Was that really 25% of voters? Or just people asked randomly? I mean, both ideas are scary, but the first one is Uber-scary.......

You could be right that it was the latter- it was "man on the street"

I think there might have been a serious poll to back that up, but what they showed was the "man on the street". And, yeah, they can always find idiots who don't know anything for those.

Jeemie wrote:

Hello, Mini! wrote:

MarleysGh0st wrote: ABC News had a story last night about the Republican candidate for governor in Washington, who has chosen to be listed on the ballot as the "GOP Party" candidate. His opponents charge that he's trying to distance himself from the national ticket, he dismisses that with the response that "everyone knows that GOP means Republican." (He didn't explain why he bothered, then, if that's the case.) ABC did some man-on-the-street interviews that found that about 25% of voters don't know what GOP means.

"GOP Party" is like "ATM Machine"! Maybe he should ask for "GOP Candidate" instead.

Was that really 25% of voters? Or just people asked randomly? I mean, both ideas are scary, but the first one is Uber-scary.......

You could be right that it was the latter- it was "man on the street"

I loved that bit, with Steve Allen. (Just a little shove to clem! )