General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublicans’ New Black Friend Is Either A Stock Photo Or....
more here
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/09/republicans-new-black-friend-either-stock-photo-interesting-day/#GFQr7MPImM0q1FyZ.16
or a very busy girl
Marr
(20,317 posts)And she just attaches the same photo to all of her unsolicited endorsement emails. And also put that photo up for sale on a stock image site.
Yeah, that's it.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,182 posts)They figured they're just as good with stock photography.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,316 posts)it would still turn fewer people away than West or Carson.
LiberalFighter
(50,928 posts)They are trying to avoid looking like loonies. But not succeeding.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)rgbecker
(4,831 posts)Whoever she is.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)We're better then them--let's not attack people for their physical appearances.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)You said "She is far too good looking to be a repub". While yes, that is technically complimenting her, it's really saying that all republicans are ugly. It's a lazy way to go after someone, and it makes DU look bad. There's a heck of a lot to criticize them about. No need to add personal attacks to that.
That said, it was pretty minor. There's a lot worse here every day. Sorry if my response came across too harshly. Your post just made me say something for once.
yesiwasacop
(93 posts)is a republican and probably a Mormon too:
http://www.utvet.com/MissUtah.html
Very hot....i wud be willing to put up with the policitcs.Of course her putting uyp with me is likely a different story...ha
Paolo123
(297 posts)and then go no contact the next morning.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Over the course of my life I've met some very outwardly attractive people who were/are incredibly repulsive down deep in their souls.
MADem
(135,425 posts)that certainly can affect their attractiveness.
And it's not a "personal" attack when you're talking about a public figure. A "personal" attack would be if you said something mean to me, or I said something mean to you.
I can say Dick Cheney looks like Darth Vader's poop and that's not a "personal" attack. I'm not talking to him, I'm talking about him. And he's not a DUer, so I'm not abusing a member of our community either.
This is a partisan site, and you're going to see some of that kind of thing here. It's usually not excessive, and if anyone goes after kids or spouses, they usually get The Hand. But public figures? Fair game.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)That is literally the definition of an ad hominem logical fallacy.
1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
I don't know what kind of definition of a personal attack needs you to be in person for it to be a personal attack. That would be ridiculous. For instance, I'd bet you'd call it a personal attack if I said "Obama's a POS". (To clarify for those needing clarification, I am not calling him that .) Of course, this is a democratic site, so I would hope that type of thing would be hidden.
That said, if it's bad enough to hide against a democrat, why do we need to say the same thing to the opposition? Just because the person (Dick Cheney) may deserve every attack leveled against him doesn't mean we should engage in those attacks.
Of course, that doesn't mean I don't understand the anger often behind those remarks. Am I gonna vote to hide something saying that Dick Cheney looks like Darth Vader's poop? No, I'm probably not. There's a lot of good reasons to be angry with him. There's a lot of good reasons to attack him. Do I think that's the best course of action? No. But I get it. Like you said, it's a partisan site. It's going to happen.
On the other hand, broad-brush insults are things that we don't need here. If I just posted "Republicans are ugly", it adds nothing of value to the conversation and it's unnecessary. I don't see why we need to stoop to their level.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am not attacking YOUR person. I am not calling YOU names--unless, of course, you're a deep cover Republican, in which case, you'd be in violation of the TOS anyway.
It's not a "personal attack" if you say nasty things about Obama to me, either. Were I Obama, it would be, otherwise, no, you're just someone who finds it fashionable to dis the POTUS. We've more than a few of those here, and they don't impress me much.
You, and only you, can decide what level you want to "stoop to," but you're not going to have much if any success trying to plaster your personal definitions of what constitutes a personal attack on the membership at large.
This is a "partisan" site, as the TOS makes clear. That's why so many of us enjoy posts like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002100108
The phrase even makes a good thread locker (and that's the ownership using it, in case you aren't clear): http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=11211
mwb970
(11,359 posts)I always assumed that the phenomenon resulted from the ugliness of their hearts showing up on the outside.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)For instance, Paul Ryan isn't that bad looking. But I want to puke every time I see his smiling face.
I still don't think that means we should attack republicans for being ugly. I saw way too much of this with Chris Christie and comments about his weight. Some of the things said about him on DU were pretty nasty.
It's funny how once you say it's okay to attack someone for being ugly, that starts to branch out into more and more comments that eventually become downright disgusting. Physical appearance should never be something we criticize people for. It strikes me as a very Republican thing to do.
7962
(11,841 posts)I agree with you. If the other side resorts to name calling, fine. Doesnt mean I have to get into the gutter with them.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)It would be fun to talk about how much they would enjoy killing Rush Limbaugh. One even thought it would be better if they got to kill him slowly and painfully.
That they may deserve the attacks doesn't make a difference. I also don't support the death penalty, despite the fact that many people do deserve death, probably worse. Same thing, I think. We as progressives should be better than that--ethical and moral behavior should be a priority (though I don't like saying moral, because of all the religious connotations).
7962
(11,841 posts)We cant criticize the other side when they say/do stupid things if its perfectly OK when OUR "guys" do it. Nobody has the market cornered on rudeness and being offensive.
GOLGO 13
(1,681 posts)She's a hottie.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)There was not one negative thing said in regards to the person in the photo. But what is sad- is that you come looking for posts to be upset about.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)with ads created straight out of their imagination
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)That's a great find.
Quayblue
(1,045 posts)bluesbassman
(19,373 posts)hearted. Skin color has nothing to do with it.
I know there are some Republicans that are nice people in many ways, but if you dig down deep enough they'll expose a black heart every time. Sometimes it's regarding social issues, sometimes it's fiscal, but it never fails. It's the nature of being a conservative.
logosoco
(3,208 posts)Is that the actual tag line in their ad? "Republicans are black"? That in and of itself is pretty awful.
jmowreader
(50,557 posts)The whole ad reminds me of an old LDS campaign where they tried to show Mormons were just regular people.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)"I don't believe in the republican platform, they are just using my image. I don't stand for anything they represent".
it's happened before, blew up in the repukes face, and it will happen again. They never learn.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)if it is reported at all
and given the prevalence of Photoshop, this picture may be no more than based on an actual person, but distorted beyond recognition
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I thought she looked familiar...
lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)They have always been techno-challenged. Too challenged
to know how easy it is to get busted on the internet.
seltzerwater
(53 posts)our stock photos were better than their stock photos...
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,835 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)GETPLANING
(846 posts)is if this young woman would come forward and say, "No way am I a Republican!"
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)biggest tax exemptions, Sympathy for a fetus but none for a child .Yep that's them .
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
csziggy
(34,136 posts)http://www.goodnewsforlds.com/
http://www.edaefca.org/distinctives.asp
http://www.sherryjones.org/
http://www.gracechurchphilly.org/blog/2011/11/17/distinctives-of-the-evangelical-free-church-of-america/
http://www.sharonpower.org/index.cfm/PageID/1013/index.html
http://www.the-z.org/index.php
http://www.agapebiblestudiesonline.org/course.html
http://www.lifeway.com/Article/christian-living-true-liberty-grace-gospel-freedom
http://www.soldierforlordjesuschrist.com/public/Cults_and_Pagans.html
This explains it! That stock photo is labeled "Spiritual Journey Portraits" at http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/spiritual-journey-portraits-2599092
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)...with a stock photo of another young women? IIR hers were used largely by colleges in their ads but as she projected such as "girl next door" image the same photo ended up 'shopped into a multitude of different contexts?
I *think* this was the one, from 2005-ish?
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-viral-pictures-and-internet-memes.php/parked-domain-girl
csziggy
(34,136 posts)Way back, wallets were sold with stock photos already in them. I knew a guy who had no credit cards and no family photos who would just left those pics in and claimed them as his own.
Crash2Parties
(6,017 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I write and sell short porn stories through Amazon and routinely use stock photos for the covers. Pretty sure I used this photo on one of them.
bl968
(360 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,457 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)I'd like to hear from the actual model. I wonder what she'd say about it.
3catwoman3
(23,985 posts)...LIKE your version a LOT!
Mister Nightowl
(396 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)As usual, Republicans can't make friends so they have to buy them.
DFW
(54,378 posts)Sure, they may smile a lot less than the woman in the photo, but at least they're real black Republicans.
Probably close to ten per cent of them, in fact.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)First they tried a pic of Dan Quayle in blackface, but decided it looked kinda silly, so what were they supposed to do?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)riverwalker
(8,694 posts)Shes a Republican, Optician, loan shark and an engineer.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)sounds about right.