I'm surprised they think it's acceptable to engage in this kind of trickery... or that they want to be associated with deception.
I do understand humor, but I don't see why they think it's good for them to be fake and deceptive.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१५ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 215 पैकी 201 – 215"Or do you think Romney's plan does add up?"
Ryan's plan does.
Regardless, you are generally correct.
We will screw our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to "protect" our social security and medicare benefits.
I'm sure they'll thank us for being so selfish.
Ok, maybe I'm missing something here, but has everyone lost their minds, or is this an elaborate meta-joke where we pretend we're offended by an obvious parody?
Ann, I'm legally blind, OK, and it took all put two seconds to see the "paid for by the DNC" at the bottom.
Maybe I'm just a hopeless captive of the "Democrat Media Complex," but I find the outrage over this as phony as Romney's foreign policy expertise, or the math for his tax plan.
t's astonishing to me that the main theme of the Obama campaign in recent months has been to call Romney a liar. I mean, really?
Well, I'm committed to the plain meaning of words, so I'm unsure as to what you're supposed to call someone when they tell lies, other than a liar.
Back in Nixon's day trickery (the young guys at the Committee to Reelect the President called it "rat-f**king") was supposed to be the mark of a bad president. Has that changed?
Perhaps Althouse can add an "Obama is like Nixon" tag.
Inga said...
"Perhaps some conservatives should give their opinion of what would constitute the 85 % of cuts that would remain after withdrawl from Afghanistan and ending tax cuts for the rich. I'd love to hear it."
Except we're not the ones voting for a fantasy candidate with a fantasy plan to fix the deficit and debt with fantasy fixes.
Obama platform: "Fuck the Future; Reelect Me. You'll be Dead When Your Grandkids Get the Bills."
That gaggle of undecided voters taking their seats (watching on C-SPAN) is whiter than an Ivy's faculty lounge.
phx: the purpose of Romney's tax cuts is to grow the economy. If more people get jobs and work, more tax dollars will come in.
From what I understand, Brookings and other liberal think tanks have said Romney's tax cuts would not work because they're assuming zero economic growth. They're positing that regardless of the tax rate, people will work the same amount, save the same amount, and invest the same amount.
I'm not an economist, but those assumptions don't seem right to me.
A pro-growth stance is a better approach than "soak the rich."
Of course, cutting taxes alone won't get us out of the mess we're in. We'll have to cut spending (in DC, what is called a "cut" is frequently a cut in the increase of spending, but that doesn't stop pols from screaming like scalded cats about it).
Look, I think we have some very tough years in front of us, no matter who wins the election. We are the brokest country in history. Romney gives me a glimmer of hope that we, as a nation, will finally face facts and swallow some bitter medicine. The Dems will drive us "Forward" straight off a cliff.
Seriously. No joke...('cause I know how our hostess feels about workers-like-me having the "audacity" to joke with an academic-like-her)...how long DID it take for Ann to figure out that wasn't an actual Romney website?
She said it took a "long time" before noticing the statement at the bottom...are we talking long seconds? Or minutes? Half-hour? Hour? More than an hour?
How long is long?
Inga and phx,
Thanks for replying. I was beginning to wonder if my comments were only showing on my screen.
I appreciate your honest answers as well as the dollop of smile-inducing snark on top.
Can we agree, then, that the attacks on Romney about "details" are disingenuous when Obama's plan has rather large holes in it?
And that the little javascript site, while amusing to some, is just a softball attempt to score political points rather than advance a position of substance?
Can we agree, then, that the attacks on Romney about "details" are disingenuous when Obama's plan has rather large holes in it?
I think lots of "liberals" would like to vote for a fiscal conservative. It's the "social" they're worried about.
You've lost it, Professor Althouse, if you can't see this as the obvious humor/parody that it is. Were you deceived by the DNC logo at the bottom! What happened to cruel neutrality? I'd say it's given away to defensive partisanship!
'd say it's given away to defensive partisanship!
Pffft. You mean dishonest partisanship.
If you are a average worker
This is how the left sees you.
An average worker.
I'm a huge Romney fan, but that's actually kind of funny, to be honest.
purplepenquin said...
Althouse puts up a post designed to trick you into thinking that the DNC put up a webpage without admitting they were behind it. I'm surprised that she thinks it is acceptable to engage in this kind of trickery...or that she wants to be associated with deception.
LOL...who am I kidding? I ain't surprised at all that she did this...nor am I surprised that she is planting her flag on this one with the "Take a long time to see that" claim. It just shows desperation and a lack of class.
But then why is the focus of the site deception? It isn't a joke if you're intent is to deceive. Why is the default position of the left to lie?
Is it better to be deceptive and be believed or is it better to be honest and not be believed?
Is ideology so important that you are willing to ignore its underlying faults?
Rusty, that site isn't a "lie" anymore than the Onion is.
I truly would like to know how many minutes (hours?) folks who are fussing about this were befuddled by it, so would you (or anyone else) mind telling about how long it took for ya to figure out that the website wasn't actually from the Romney/Ryan team? Thanks.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा