AAAAGH! Must.Vent.Rage.

[bleedingedge]

Alright, I've had it with the fucking other side. They must be eradicated.



Yesterday, my boss got a RW letter re: John Kerry's war record. It was a long, terribly-disguised "Vote for Bush" piece of shit. I won't dare post it, lest some "full message fascist" decides that doing so makes me a Freeper-in-disguise. If you want to see it, I posted it on a thread called "Help Me Frag This Letter" or something like that. (BUT BE CAREFUL - I posted the full text of the message, so you might be exposed to its ideas and undergo a radical liberalectomy. BOOGA BOOGA!)

Anyway, I sent a reply to the letter's author asking for him/her to provide sources because, in his/her own words "I do not have the room to cite all the sources but will make them available to you upon request."

S/he sent back the following: "Thanks for the information".

When I pressed for the sources, s/he wrote back "Lighten up, I don't have the time to run a political debate with you."

AAAAAAAA! MUST KILL CONSERVATIVE HACKS! AAAAAAAA!

And they wonder why our side is so pissed off.

[bkcc]

1. I hear ya.

I have a friend whose wingnut husband feels compelled to send me shit like that every once in a while.

Their whole worldview seems to be based on fear and hatred of anything they don't understand.

[baldguy]

2. Every RW talking point is a lie.

If this person just forwards stuff w/o checking it, then they're an idiot.

[MallRat]

3. Why are all email slander campaigns anti-KERRY?

Hell, why don't we start a nasty email campaign loaded with almost-believable, unreferenced and unfounded, hard-to-confirm bullshit about Bush and Cheney?

You want to know why? Because we don't stoop to their level. Because unlike them, we actually value the truth. That's what makes us better than them.

In the era of the Internet, Winston Churchill's words have never rung more true: "A lie can get halfway around the world before truth gets its pants on."

:grr:

-MR

[bleedingedge]

9. But there's a problem with that...

It probably took this guy 25 minutes to write what he did, then he sent it to a small mailing list, who then read it and said "Well, if he has sources, it must be true".

To debunk it, it took me 6 hours of source compiling, etc. Granted, I ain't The Flash, but even if I took twice as long as necessary, that's a big frigging chunkload of time.

This is how they will win (if they do): the mass propagation of unsubstantiated BS. From the likes of Rush on down to this jackass with a mailing list.

I think I (or somebody else who will actually follow up on it) should start a web site where we can post this shit and then write replies to it. So we build a sort of DB that warehouses all the RW propaganda letters and standard responses to them, including sources. Then anybody who needs one can look up the letter (or one similar) and cobble together a sourced, cogent reply in just as short a timeframe as it takes to make up the lies.

[truthspeaker]

4. Write back and say "So you admit you were lying."

Anyway, whatever you say about Kerry's military record, at least he bothered to show up.

[tandot]

5. That is the deal with them: They will never be able to back up any claims

they make with credible sources because they are all liars.

They count on the fact that only a few people research their claims and the remaining morons just believe whatever they are told.

Whenever I go to freerepublic to see what they are conniving about, I rarely see any credible sources with their posts (unless they think Limbaugh is a credible source :puke: )

Actually, the only credible and unbiased sources posted there are usually seen as anti-Bush and portrayed as being proof of "liberal" media bias.

I've never seen so many hate-filled lies and misleading statements in my whole life. However, I am comforted by knowing that those wackos over there make up only a very small percentage of the population.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. Hit'n'run debating. What a coward.

"I don't have the time to run a political debate with you."

Oh, but had time to mass-mail electoral propaganda, didn't he? What a wuss.

Tell him I said this.

[bleedingedge]

7. I sent this to him ASAP after he chicken-shitted out

I was under the impression that *you* were the one who wanted to debate, seeing as how you composed the original material. Additionally, you indicated that you would be willing and able to provide sources for the various quotes and information you used.

All I'm asking you to do is live up to your end of the agreement, which was, and I'm quoting here "I do not have the room to cite all the sources but will make them available to you upon request." I asked for a grand total of one source, in which John Kerry is quoted as calling himself a war hero. Well, I'm requesting. All you have to do is uphold your end of the trust. I'm not asking for a "debate", I'm asking for the sources of your material, which you stated you could provide.

Pending your next response, I will notify the original recipients of your e-mail to let them know that, when it came down to it, you couldn't back up your claims.

[LynneSin]

8. Solution: REPLY ALL with this:

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

You'll find most of the chain mail information there. When you reply all then all the other folks on the list will get the reply and it'll embarass the hell out of the sender.

I did it once to my sister-in-law when she sent me the list of the '50 people killed by the Clintons'. I 'replied all' with a link from snopes about about a dozen other references about the TRUTH. She never sent me crap like that again!!

[bleedingedge]

10. I did use some of Snopes' material...

in my reply (which was fully sourced) but I also used a lot of other stuff from newspapers, etc.

I wanted to try to use as many sources as I could so there couldn't be any claim of "well, that's a liberal source". I even used some stuff from Prevention magazine and the Paralyzed Veterans of America (let's see his candy ass try to discredit them).

[CBHagman]

11. My moment of awakening last night.

I was watching Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and there was, as usual, a Bush ad during the commercial break. This time it was a new ad attacking Kerry's voting record (surprise, surprise), declaring he'd missed key votes and voted the wrong way when he'd showed up.

The capper was the claim that the Laci Peterson law, which Kerry had voted against, would "PROTECT PREGNANT WOMEN."

HUGE, HUGE lie, that. The Laci Peterson law only applies after a crime has been committed, in the trial and penalty phase of the matter, not to the time before a crime may be committed. It has only to do with the status of the fetus, not any sort of crime prevention program.

Besides, isn't this administration the one that closed the office on women's issues and won't support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act?

These are, to paraphrase the late Mickey Leland, evil violators of mothers. The more we unmask them, the better for the country. Go to it!

Also, if Lee Atwater didn't really repent, he's doing some cackling today from his ring of Hell. This is one dirty-tricks campaign...