The NRCC is scamming voters out of their money

[krazen1211]

So tell me then, what exactly is the purpose of registering that domain?

To disseminate negative advertisements about Sink to Sink supporters, and to try to dissuade Sink supporters from donating to her -- and in a best-case scenario to donate to the NRCC. It is very obviously targeted toward Sink supporters, but the website doesn't make any show of being pro-Sink and it's ludicrous to suggest it does.

Guess who owns the domain jollyforcongress.com

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

[DrScholl]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

That actually re-directs to the Democratic Party site, it doesn't ask for donations under a misleading url. Try again.

[krazen1211]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

That actually re-directs to the Democratic Party site, it doesn't ask for donations under a misleading url. Try again.

It's quite funny how some of the fools can read a url, but apparently can't read the content on the actual page.

[Cory]

It's quite funny how some of the fools can read a url, but apparently can't read the content on the actual page.

Nice dodge. How about admitting the "parallel" you cited was bull and doesn't compare to the OP?

[krazen1211]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

[Alcon]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

I like how he noted a significant difference between the examples you were giving and this thread, and you replied like you were agreeing with him, except you completely ignored the significant difference he's observing.

Does this work for you in actual human conversations, or is it just something you think works in text?  It doesn't.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

Thank you for confirming what everybody already knew, but you ignored the actual important part of my post.

[krazen1211]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

I like how he noted a significant difference between the examples you were giving and this thread, and you replied like you were agreeing with him, except you completely ignored the significant difference he's observing.

Does this work for you in actual human conversations, or is it just something you think works in text?  It doesn't.

Of course, there is an explicit contribution link right at the bottom. Those observational powers seem be quite selective.

The goalposts will soon shift again. Carry on.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

I like how he noted a significant difference between the examples you were giving and this thread, and you replied like you were agreeing with him, except you completely ignored the significant difference he's observing.

Does this work for you in actual human conversations, or is it just something you think works in text?  It doesn't.

Of course, there is an explicit contribution link right at the bottom. Those observational powers seem be quite selective.

The goalposts will soon shift again. Carry on.

Don't you get tired of shifting them, Lucy?  I don't know why you're bothering since there are no Charlie Browns here.

[pbrower2a]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

That actually re-directs to the Democratic Party site, it doesn't ask for donations under a misleading url. Try again.

It's quite funny how some of the fools can read a url, but apparently can't read the content on the actual page.

The ad is unquestionably negative, and it could confuse nobody about its purpose.

[Vosem]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

That actually re-directs to the Democratic Party site, it doesn't ask for donations under a misleading url. Try again.

It's quite funny how some of the fools can read a url, but apparently can't read the content on the actual page.

The ad is unquestionably negative, and it could confuse nobody about its purpose.

Just like the one the NRCC put up about Sink?

[pbrower2a]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

That actually re-directs to the Democratic Party site, it doesn't ask for donations under a misleading url. Try again.

It's quite funny how some of the fools can read a url, but apparently can't read the content on the actual page.

The ad is unquestionably negative, and it could confuse nobody about its purpose.

Just like the one the NRCC put up about Sink?

A negative ad leaves no question of its purpose. It often has derisive music, cartoonish images of an alternative, mocking music, and some unsettling spin on a vote or on administrative performance. Negative ads are at times legitimate ways to expose extreme positions, incompetence, abuse of power, inexperience, conflicts of interest, or questionable connections. So if a politician trivializes rape or its consequences such is a good reason for many to vote him down. In 2012 Democratic nominees won Senate seats in Indiana and Missouri, states that voted against President Obama by 10%.

A deceptive ad intended to trick people into sending campaign contributions that they think are going to a candidate's campaign fund but are instead going to that candidate's opponent is fraud.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

No; that kind of stuff has been going on for years (although I don't like that either) on both sides, but there's no misleading contribution page.

It might not be particularly new, no. Things that work are often copied.

I like how he noted a significant difference between the examples you were giving and this thread, and you replied like you were agreeing with him, except you completely ignored the significant difference he's observing.

Does this work for you in actual human conversations, or is it just something you think works in text?  It doesn't.

Of course, there is an explicit contribution link right at the bottom. Those observational powers seem be quite selective.

The goalposts will soon shift again. Carry on.

1. The "Donate" button is as big as the text making it clear it's an anti-Romney page.
2. When taken to the donation page, the text "HELP DEMOCRATS TODAY" appear in big font at the top, and there is a picture of Barack Obama.

I said "misleading contribution page", and you gave an example of a non-misleading contribution page.  The only goalpost shifting has come from you.