THE REPLY to every damn last Freeper email.

[ClassWarrior]

REPLY ALL to it and ask the sender to provide links to back up his or "facts."

Don't do the Freeps' work for them. Make them prove their claims - AND RIDICULE THEM RUTHLESSLY IF THEY CAN'T.

[stepnw1f]

1. That's Exactly What I Have Been Doing

for the last 6-8 months. It works very well.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Isn't it amazing??

[stepnw1f]

5. It's Because They Repeat Every Word Talk Radio Spokes People

say to the. These people are brainwashed.

[ClassWarrior]

15. So make them PROVE it or make them look like fools.

It's so fricking easy, it's ridiculous.

[stepnw1f]

24. I Have been Using This Tactic At A Site

that had been over-run by right wingos, and let me tell you, they may be there still, but there a lot more people against them and their Misleader.

In fact the site is over-run by those on the left. I hope I had something to do with it.

[BlueCollar]

2. that's the way I do it

eom

[Mz Pip]

4. They won't check the facts because they

are too arrogant to believe they could be wrong.

That's why I take the time to do it for them. Besides, I like correcting freepers. It pisses them off and there is nothing more satisfying than pissing off a freeper. :evilgrin:

MzPip
:dem:

[ClassWarrior]

7. You're wasting time that could be spent convincing a swing voter.

You'll never succeed in convincing a Freeper. But you WILL succeed in making one look ridiculous if you demand proof. And when they don't produce it, send a reminder out to their entire list asking what's the problem - was their email a lie?

In this situation the Freeper isn't your audience - everyone else who got the email is.

[Mz Pip]

10. Hitting "Reply to All"

with the truth just might convince a couple of swing voters.

MzPip
:dem:

[ClassWarrior]

16. Amen.

[RetroLounge]

6. I've been doing that for months now

they NEVER back it up with anything except links to Newsmax...

Sad...

RL

[ClassWarrior]

8. Isn't it though?

[playahata1]

23. Do you remind them, in turn, that Newsmax has been tested,

and has been found wanting?

Force them to come up with something better. Make them use their few brain cells.

[Pepperbelly]

9. A guy I work with was wounded in Iraq and Bush gave him his medals.

He said the fucker gave the medal, shook his hand and went on. Never said a word to him.

He also said that while in D.C., he was in a gathering with the Big Dog and by the time he left, he felt treasured.

Odd, eh?

[wyldwolf]

11. Here is my latest exchange

..got the Mrs. John Kerry: What she stands for e-mail from my mother-in-law and it was cc'd to multiple addresses.

I responded to all the addresses with this:

Urban legend... as are most of the political e-mail "forwards" that make the rounds. You can usually identify them because they are always un-sourced with no supportive evidence. Sorry. Snopes.com is a great site to debunk such items.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/tides.asp

I then got this from one of the people on the list:

1. Snopes is unreliable and quite biased when it comes
to anything political. I wouldn't hang my hat on
anything they say. See
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff97773.htm

2. Money *is* fungible and even ear-marked money
simply frees up other money to be used elsewhere for
insalubrious purposes. The bigger issue for most
thoughtful people is dubious recipients of money and
how or why an organization would tolerate any
connection to these radical groups in the first place.
No amount of protest or explanation will gainsay that.

I then responded back with:

Very interesting.

This site claims the opposite - that snopes has a conservative bias:

http://shock-awe.info/archive/000858.php One quote reads: "Actually most of what Snopes has written about 9-11 has been biased and very jingoistic. Extremely pro-Bush."

Also, the text in the site you linked to was written by "Ron" (who?) and relies on the tired "media is biased" meme to "prove" snopes is liberal. His evidence is his own opinion and his belief that the NY Times is biased.

What do the two sites (my link and yours) have in common? The passages were composed by ordinary people like you and I who didn't like the coverage snopes.com gave on a particular issue. One felt snopes was liberal. One felt he was conservative.

However, this does not speak at all to the underlying problem of the original e-mail in which absolutely zero substantive evidence is presented - which is usually the case with these types of attack e-mails. The snopes piece explained it best - these "charges" have not appeared in any news story, only editorials (from World Net Daily and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page - both believed by many to be conservatively biased), because they can not be substantiated. You say, "The bigger issue for most thoughtful people is dubious recipients of money and how or why an organization would tolerate any connection to these radical groups in the first place." However, no credible connection has been made.


Just goes to show that when we read something we like, we want to believe it despite the lack of evidence to support it. Conversely, when we read something we don't like we're too quick to scream "media bias."

After three days, no response has came...

[ClassWarrior]

12. Did you think a response would come?

It's much easier just to say, "Prove it, Freeper," and then wait for the silence. And then you can spend the free time you've earned convincing swing voters.

Speaking of which, I must be off to phone bank for Kerry...

[wyldwolf]

17. well, actually, yeah I did.

They usually battle on. I like to keep pounding them with logic until they turn into a frothing pile of insulting dog shit.

[BeatleBoot]

13. I used SNOPES just yesterday

about the "Teresa Heinz Kerry/outsourcing" email making the rounds.

Thanks for the Shock and Awe site. I'll use it too!

[ClassWarrior]

14. Don't use anything - MAKE THEM DO THE WORK FOR THEIR LIES.

Use your time to convince swing voters - not Freeps who wouldn't recognize the truth if Michael Moore was physically shoving it down their throats.

[calimary]

18. DEFINITELY. I have done this myself, and I just simply DO NOT

get those crappy emails anymore.

You send a rebuttal back - packed with facts (you can find PLENTY of excellent, well-written, well-researched ammo here). You send it to the person who sent it to you. THEN, you send it to the personS who sent it to THEM.

Since I'm not very sophisticated in this regard, I wind up cut-n-pasting a lot. I copy the "to" list from the email I received, and paste that into the "to" space in my own reply. So ALL those people who got the original lies and misrepresentations and bullshit GET MY REPLY ALSO. Sometimes I've even gone a step or two back, even from THERE! So you set straight the person who sent this crap to you, and the person who sent it to him/her (and everybody else), AND the people who sent it to THOSE folks, and the people who sent it to THOSE folks, etc.

They don't like it? TOUGH SHIT. I don't like getting LIES. I don't like it when they send crap to me. Perhaps they just don't understand how it feels, or what it's like, to RECEIVE lying crap emails. Maybe, just maybe, it's never happened to them.

SO I TEACH 'EM.

[OnionPatch]

19. YES!

You've got it down. This is what I tell everyone.
It's exremely important that we stand up to each and every lie that's being spread.

[QERTY]

20. Pointless, There Are Many Fringe Sites Which They Use...

...to "prove" their garbage. These people are truly dangerous. I keep hearing them predicting a civil war. I believe in freedom of speech more than any other ideology but there has to be something we can do about these ridiculous propagandists in the broadcast media. When lies or blatant distortions are reported as fact, not opinion, shouldn't there be a disclaimer? Can they be sued? I know I sound pathetic but isn't there something that can be done? The ClearChannels and Foxes of the world can really bring about horror in our lives. I wish I were a fly on the wall in Michael Powell's meetings.

[calimary]

21. HERE is something you can do:

Newsweek.MSNBC.com

Editorial questions and comments: [e-mail]
For questions about the website: [e-mail]

Newsweek Domestic Edition

Letters to the Editor for the U.S. print edition: [e-mail]
Mailing Address:
Newsweek
251 W. 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

Contact information for Newsweek and MSNBC. There is a thread here about Ed Shultz, the liberal talk show host, and his assertions that part of our problem is that there aren't enough liberals on the air. Here's the story itself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5562049/site/newsweek

Read it. Check the thread about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2123198

THEN: WRITE TO NEWSWEEK ABOUT IT. WRITE TO MSNBC ABOUT IT.

AFTER YOU DO THAT: CALL OR WRITE YOUR LOCAL RADIO STATION. One. Or MORE, maybe, if you're really motivated (and if you REALLY want change and TRUE fairness and balance), and your market has more than one talk station. Ask them when they're adding Ed Shultz. Ask them when they're going to put more liberals on the air. THE MOMENTUM IS WITH US RIGHT NOW. Kerry/Edwards got a bounce from the convention. We need to JUMP ON THAT -!- NOW -!- and ride it all the way in.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW URGENT AND IMPORTANT THIS IS!!!

If they hear NO complaints about the status quo, they'll think there's nobody complaining, or that there's nothing to be complained about. Therefore, they'll have all the proof they need - to leave everything as is, and NOT DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE IT!!!

If they think we don't care, they won't, either!

Sorry to nag.

BUT I'M NAGGING ANYWAY!!!!!!!!

[ClassWarrior]

29. Let 'em try to sway people with garbage sites.

If there are undecideds on their email lists, you stand a chance of swaying someone.

[skygazer]

22. You're absolutely right

I got one from my father just this morning, the same old bulk mailing crap that they pass around amongst each other. Sound bites and bullshit put forth completely out of context. This is how he debates politics. It's ridiculous and SO easy to score points off of.

[SemperEadem]

25. I must be the most fortunate person on DU in this respect

I get no emails, nor do I have to fend off Freeper attacks. Believe me, from what I've read of other people's tribulation in that area, I am grateful. My mom is a 'religious-issues' freeper, but I checked her about 25 yrs ago. She was running down some dogma on me and I said "Mom, as Billy Joel sings, 'I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners are much more fun...' ". She's left me alone on this issue since then.

[KharmaTrain]

27. I Avoid These Scum...I Have Allergies To Assholes

I used to stop by some Freeper boards, but stopped after 9/11 when the rhetoric went from shrill to outright fascist and no one could discuss or debate without it turning into extreme name calling. Yep, facts didn't matter.

But I'm surprised to see that no one has gotten Freeper posts loaded with links? I used to see those all the time from their associated websites (usually Newsmax or Pittsburgh Gazette or Boston Herald or other right wing rag) which you could refute through Snopes or just bomb 'em back point after point, but what's the use?

The time has come for us to start segregating those who are worth discussing politics with opposed to those one doesn't. I won't waste time with someone who starts with a Freeper or Wingnut point and gets dismissive thereafter. But there are a lot of people who are questioning, and these are people very, very much worth having a dialogue with and who either can be persuaded to look at an alternative to this regime (and personally if they vote for Nader right now, that's fine...as long as it's not this regime) or, even better, for them to sit this election out. If they can't bring themselves to outsting this regime themselves, let us do it for them.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

26. I agree. Freep clone emails generally are passed around and have

no citations or sources.

I totally agree with this (original post), why should only our side be burdened with proving everything and theirs with none? And you should definitely reply to all. If they're going to spam, they should be exposed as wanting to all those same people.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Amen, MM!!

[IrateCitizen]

30. Freepers don't send me anything after I started "reply all" and refute

I have an aunt who used to send me jingoistic bullshit emails, until I just started doing "reply all" and preceding to tear her a new one (in a cold, factual way). I never received replies from her, or anyone on her list.

I remember particularly one email I received from a former military colleague about Hillary Clinton's supposed snubbing of Gold Star mothers. I hit "reply all", and copied the Snopes refuting of this story. I do have to say I received several derogatory emails from others on the list, but I really didn't care. I also received several from the sender in question, asking me why I was "attacking" him -- I replied quite politely that as soon as he injected such untruth and filth into the public discourse, that I had the complete right to refute it -- that we should instead try to talk about things on the "facts" rather than innuendo. Needless to say, I didn't hear much from him after that....

And I remember the old one about Pepsi cans and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance I received at work -- I hit "reply all" and attached a quick history of the Pledge of Allegiance starting with the original version written by Rev. Francis Bellamy. I actually received several "thank you" emails in response to that one.

But, alas, no one sends me any of these anymore. I guess they're just tired of being made to look like fools in response.... :shrug:

Silly Freepers.... barely two brain cells to rub together between all of them.

[ClassWarrior]

31. The point is - you don't HAVE to refute 'em!

Make them do the work - or look silly if they don't.

[ClassWarrior]

32. kick

:kick:

[johnfunk]

33. KICK!!

And remember...

[Tight_rope]

34. Kick!