Well, look what the postmaster dragged in:
I received this envelope in the mail in January, and again this month. Guess what it is. “Form 1163 (2006) Return Enclosed.” Hmmm. “U.S. Individual Resident.” Hmmmm. Eagle graphic up top. Hmmm. Official looking black bars. Hmmmm.
Yes, these are all the elements of an official tax document. Thinking that was exactly what I’d received, I of course opened the letter so that I could attend to their contents and respond promptly.
The letter appearing when I withdrew the contents read “Your immediate attention is required on a confidential and time-sensitive matter.” Above these words were stamped “Registration #: 54.93.252″ in red and black ink.
Only when I looked closer did I see that the letter was coming from North Carolina Republican Senator Elizabeth Dole, in her capacity as chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
It was a fundraising document.
While I am tickled that the Republican Party would choose to waste some money on sending me a fundraising appeal, I am frankly flabbergasted that Republican ethical standards have dropped so low that now they feel it’s acceptable to send out a fundraising appeal in the fraudulent guise of an official tax communication. As you know, I get flabbergasted a lot — but this standard of behavior really takes the cake.
I have no expectation that Elizabeth Dole or the Republican Party will apologize for their behavior because they clearly have no problem with fraudulent misrepresentation. That is itself a significant problem.
Technically, it’s not fraudulent. When you opened it up, it explained exactly for what purpose it served. It’s clever marketing and a little dishonest, sure, but it’s not fraudulent.
I’ve received similar stuff (as far as deceptive mailings that looked to be one thing but turned out to be another) from political campaigns, car dealers, local businesses, etc. many times.
It’s called advertising, and it made me look. Made you look, too.
So then, what you’re saying, Kevin, is that the Republican Party stands for amoral standards in advertising, right?
Merriam-Webster:
fraud a) DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b) an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.
As I said before, “I have no expectation that Elizabeth Dole or the Republican Party will apologize for their behavior because they clearly have no problem with fraudulent misrepresentation. That is itself a significant problem.”
They may be fradulent. But they are also clearly incompetent – because they sent it to you.
Dude, fraudulent in the legal sense. Man, y’all need to chill out and either throw it away or ignore it.
You weren’t required to DO ANYTHING other than a) send a donation- if you chose to do so, or b) throw it away.
And yes, Fungal Mass, you have singlehandedly figured out the Republican party. Bravo. How is a cleverly disguised piece of “junk mail” amoral? Hell, I get offers from banks disguised as sweepstakes offers all the time.
Again, you weren’t required to do anything. You weren’t being asked to do anything that you didn’t want to do.
It’s advertising. It’s junk mail. It’s part of life. It’s not amoral. It’s a nuissance, but it’s not illegal.
Oh and Tillerman, I think Jim signed up to receive Republican mailings. I may be wrong, but I think he mentioned that somewhere.
If that is the case, they are neither “fraudulent” nor “incompetent.”
And Jim, the letter was clearly marked as being a fundraising item when you read the letter; thus, no fraud. I’m no lawyer, but I would advise you not to pursue any legal action against the Dole campaign. Just FYI.
As I said before, “I have no expectation that Elizabeth Dole or the Republican Party will apologize for their behavior because they clearly have no problem with fraudulent misrepresentation. That is itself a significant problem.â€
[Vegas, I accidentally hit the wrong button and deleted your message after it got inappropriately caught in the Spam filters. I am very sorry about that -- it was wholly unintentional, I promise.]
Deceptive advertising. Bait and switch. Why was the outside not clearly marked as a fundraising letter? The republican party thinks deceiving people is business-as-usual?
Kevin isn’t quite responding to reality, is he?
Can Jim file criminal charges? Probably not. Can he file civil charges? He didn’t lose any money.
Can Jim expose Elizabeth Dole for the deceptive fundraiser she is? Of course. And that’s exactly what he’s doing.
Kevin’s got some pretty low moral standards if he thinks this kind of deception of the public isn’t “amoral.” How is cleverly-disguised junk mail “amoral?” How is purposeful deception with the intent to gain money “amoral?” Uh, Kevin, it’s the very definition of “fraud.”
Just like someone with low moral standards to tell people who aspire to something higher to “chill out.” But then it’s puzzling that such a person would take the trouble to attack criticism of deceptive fundraising, while giving the deceptive fundraising itself a pass. Attacking critics has been the meat and potatoes of Republican propaganda for a while now, of course. They’ve got nothing left.
Is the Iraq War bad? No, it’s criticism of the war that hurts America.
Was Abu Ghraib bad? No, it’s just the people who dwell on it and get all critical that are bad for America.
Is deceptive fundraising bad? No, criticism of deceptive fundraising is bad.
Was Clinton getting a blowjob bad? No, criticism of–oh, wait, yes! Bad. Bad, bad, bad!
[Vegas is probably a bad moniker for the spam filters, trying no doubt to weed out online poker ads.]
IT’S NOT DECEPTION! Sure, it’s a little misleading but check your mail for one week and set aside all the notices and “This Demands Your Immediate Attention!” letters that appear to be one thing but are, in reality, something completely different. Geez, it’s MAIL. Get over it!
Jim, why should they apologize? ‘Cause they incovenienced you for a few seconds out of your life? Heck, maybe I should demand apologies from everyone who inconveniences me with junk mail or solicitations. They (the Dole campaign) did nothing wrong, nothing illegal. The fact that you don’t like the way they chose to contact you means nothing, much less means they owe you or anyone else an apology. I’m sure in a year or two you will have forgotten all about this. If I had a dime for every piece of mail that was one thing on the outside but something else on the inside, Donald Trump would be my butler.
Aaaaaargh! It’s enough to make me start sniffin’ glue again.
Ooh! I love it!
This is going to be the newest Republican catchphrase: “It’s not deception! It’s just misleading!”
Explain the difference between deception and misleading, now, good Republicans.
Please, please, please, let Elizabeth Dole come out with a public statement about why it’s okay to mislead voters. I want to hear that one.
Patricia: Oh, how I longed for you to write in! Speaking of deception: PLEASE, PLEASE provide the proof that I a sexist. Remember, over a year ago you accused me but you have yet to provide proof…
I will speak no more on the subject until you provide proof.
Deception: Maybe it is deception to some degree, but it’s not deception in the sense they are trying to fool you into sending them money. The only “deception” occured on the outside of the envelope; the inside was perfectly clear as to its focus and intent. Thus, “deception” doesn’t fly all the way. It’s more misleading than anything else.
Well this is interesting.
So they’re fooling you. And they’re trying to get you to send them money. But they’re not “trying to fool you into sending them money.”
OK, sure.
Then why ARE they trying to fool people? Oh, I’m sorry, not “fool.” “Mislead,” but short of full-blown “deceive.” “Fraud” is right out! Semantics aside, and given that this is, after all, a fundraising letter, what other than a desire to raise money could possibly have possessed these people to engage in what I’m sure we can all agree is a bit of “sub-truthiness?”
I’m sure their motive must have been something noble! But WHAT?
La, la, la… Kevin, whenever it’s become clear that you aren’t making sense, you trot out these old defeats and slights to your ego. That score was settled long ago, but you’ve forgotten, and becoming so obsessed, are coming back to me about something that I don’t even remember any more.
Sigh.
So, is this the best of the Republican position that you can represent, Kevin, that a deception is not a deception, but is misleading people, but that’s okay, so maybe it is deception, but it’s still okay that the Republicans are deceiving people, because it’s the right kind of deception, and anyone with any sense should be able to realize what an unscrupulous approach the Republicans have toward communicating with voters?
Oh, but then you say it again. It’s not deception, but just misleading voters. There’s something that doesn’t fly here, that’s for sure, but it isn’t the Irregular Times article.
Patricia, you are without a doubt the most wacked-out individual I have (n)ever met. You say I say it wasn’t deception; but, alas, you forget that I wrote:
“Deception: Maybe it is deception to some degree, but it’s not deception in the sense they are trying to fool you into sending them money.”
Hmm, sounds like I addressed the deception criteria in a way that kinda acknowledged it was, in a way. Damn, Patricia. I want what’s in your head that causes you to disregard things that HAVE JUST BEEN WRITTEN AND/OR SAID!!! And then, to boot, totally disregard, oh, never mind. You won’t remember this anyway.
Ego defeats??? Oh wait, you have “selective memory!” Must be nice to live life oblivious to reality.
Wheeee! Kevin’s gone off the deep end!
“IT IS NOT DECEPTION!” (post 11)
“Well, maybe it is deception to some degree” (post 13)
“sounds like I addressed the deception criteria in a way that kinda acknowledged it was, in a way” (post 16).
Is Patricia crazy? Is Kevin babbling incoherently? Tune in next time, for…
Wheeee!
Pingback: Irregular Times: News Unfit for Print » You Want a Woman to Be President? You Want a Black Man to be President?