Hell, Lee Atwater did that shit before breakfast, just warming up!
Your antecedent is a bit vague, but I assume the “it” there is the hypothetical disclaimer?
Because if so, that would not be a lie. For instance, my opinion (and I suspect many SDMB liberals hold similar views, but do not want to speak for anyone specifically) is that the current incarnation of the Republican party is particularly guilty of many kinds of scummy behavior. So if I started a thread saying “here’s something bad done by a particular Republican”, then yes, I would be specifically focusing on Republicans and not Democrats, because I would be trying to stress the meta-level point that Republicans are particularly prone to scumminess. But a single incident of similar Democratic scumminess would neither surprise me nor disprove my point. Nor, for that matter, would a similar incident of Democratic scumminess that had been met only be the proverbial deafening silence.
It’s a perfectly intellectually consistent position to believe that Republicans deserve particular criticism without believing that Democrats are faultless saints. In fact, I’d argue that that’s the ONLY reasonable position to hold, although I’m sure you disagree.
You ARE confused, if you think that feelings triumph over rational thought in public discourse.
Look who doesn’t know what words actually mean. Disagreeing with you on political issues doesn’t make one “vaguely sociopathic”, by any definition.
Where were you three weeks ago when I was defending the purity of the term “begging the question”?
<N.B. in the portion of post 38 not otherwise addressed by me, Bricker has constructed an argument that posts from Measure for Measure and Little Nemo constitute an implied assertion that scummy and immoral behavior are things that the Republicans alone must answer for. In pointing this out, I offer no opinion as to the soundness of the argument.>
Okay. Political mailings should not have a privileged status with respect to this requirement of the law forbidding the misleading application of dunning notice signifiers to solicitation mailings. Nor should charitable foundations or trade associations. If the law currently contains those carve-outs, I call for it to be amended to eliminate them.
Not when couched in the general phraseology of <“disagreeing with a particular individual on political issues”>; no, it doesn’t.
There is a much simpler solution. Pay your bills on time, every month, in full, and you’ll never receive a dunning notice.
If you do receive a fake one 40 years later, you’ll likely know it, before you even open the envelope.
Easy peasy.
You’re free to initiate threads with the sole purpose of attacking Democrats, you know. And if the people who object to your coming in and shitting all over this kind come in shit all over yours, I’ll have your back.
The begs the question of why you needed him.
It’s the Pit. You can kindly get the fuck over yourself.
Well, foolsguinea is Pitting the Democratic frontrunner all the time.* Hillary counts as a high-ranking Deemocrat.
*the phrase “all the time” is being used colloquially above, and is not intended to be takken literally.
That’s it. You’re on the list.
Because “Special privileges” is a social conservative hot-button phrase that I thought I would use amusingly/ironically.
In terms of whether the law was broken, I found some better images here:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/03/15/republicans-stoop-to-new-low-as-they-use-fake-past-due-notice-to-con-gullible-voters-images/
No disclaimer in those images, fwiw. But Lord Feldon correctly points out that the letter is soliciting a donation and not an, “order by the addressee of goods or services, or both”. So Priebus appears to have gotten off on a technicality.
BRICKER YOU MUST CHOOSE.
Does this review of a really bad movie invite the inference that all other movies are really good?
Got me to thinking, can we do it as, like, a gift? Start a thread about “The Latest SDMB Liberal Hypocrisy and Persecution of Conservatives” as a special thread for Bricker to vent spleen? Sort of one-stop shopping for all your liberal hypocrisy needs? I mean, there you are, thinking to yourself about how you may not be up to date with the latest lib-hyp news and the most recent offense to his dignity…well, there you go! Don’t have to search through various threads, its all right there!
I know its a custom that an OP start a thread and establish its paradigm, but is that actually a rule? I would do it, but I’ve still got ragged tomndebb scars that haven’t fully healed, so maybe somebody else?
There is the Stupid Liberal Idea thread that Clothahump seems to have given up on. Most of the contributions have been by the Board lefties.
Wow you’re an out-of-touch insensitive ass.
Humans are imperfect. Humans who have failed, or who aren’t great at things, or who have been overstressed, or who are losing a bit of their mental acuity as they age, or who are just kinda dumb don’t forfeit the right to the protection of laws. Nor should they.
I’m continually amazed that people who are shocked and disgusted when someone uses force or violence to steal somebody’s money are much more understanding if you outsmart your victim. If they are our people, we protect them, if they are not our people, who’s people are they?
No, what it is is that Bricker lacks a moral compass, despite his claims otherwise. He is completely amoral, interested only that the minutiae of the law are satisfied, as long as his client wins. If necessary he resorts to the basest pettifoggery. He is not a good man, but he might be a successful lawyer.
Bricker, in post 7,YOU make the remark about the Republicans as a group. That was the FIRST “implication” that this was Republicans vs Democrats. You brought up that implication, and in the remarks you cited as “clear implications” in post 38 were post 10, and post 14. YOU posted in post 5 and post 7, making it clear that you thought this was a case of the Republicans getting slapped around when the Democrats were just as bad. In fact. Post 14 was in DIRECT RESPONSE (quoted it and everything) to your comment : “Yeah, sure, he’s a Republican. On the SDMB, what other evidence is needed?” Again, you said that in post 7.
So prior to your remark, what was the clear implication that this was NOT just about the specific activity that was explicitly pitted in the OP?