Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Republican Robocall Pretexting Campaign 674

Posted by kdawson
from the dirty-tricks-and-phonespam dept.
WCityMike writes, "In 53 Congressional campaigns across the country, including the Pennsylvania 6th, the Connecticut 4th, the North Carolina 11th, the New Hampshire 2nd, and the Illinois 6th and 8th (and possibly all races), the National Republican Congressional Committee is conducting a $2.1 million campaign to make it appear as if Democrats are spamming callers with telemarketing calls. The NRCC hired Conquest Communications Group to conduct a massive nationwide robocalling campaign with calls specifically scripted to appear as if they're coming from the Democratic candidate — in violation of FCC regulations on such 'robocalls,' which requires the identity of the caller to be stated at the beginning of the message [47 CFR 64.1200(b)(1)]. The call begins with 'Hello. I'm calling with information about,' and then says the name of the Democratic candidate. There is then a pause; if the recipient hangs up here, they will receive repeated calls back with the same message, potentially up to 18 times or more (according to one callee). If the callee doesn't hang up, they hear a smear message from the machine about the Democratic candidate. The NRCC thinks the legality of the calls is, conveniently, a 'complicated legal question that's not going to get adjudicated this weekend.'" Update 20:47 GMT by SM: Thankfully we all learned how to deal with these folks last week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Republican Robocall Pretexting Campaign

Comments Filter:
  • Nice! (Score:3, Funny)

    by novus ordo (843883) on Monday November 06, 2006 @04:53PM (#16740883) Journal
    Then when they get elected they will halt all investigations into the matter since they will be in control. Genious! Pure Genious!
  • by fohat (168135) on Monday November 06, 2006 @05:08PM (#16741297) Homepage
    A job for RoboGOP!

    ok that was bad.
  • by diersing (679767) on Monday November 06, 2006 @05:15PM (#16741457)
    My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. My opponent has openly admitted he feels an affinity toward your city, but I happen to like this area. It might be a salubrious place to him, but to me it is one of the nation's most delightful garden spots.

    When I embarked upon this political campaign, I hoped that it could be conducted on a high level and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable instead--to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches, and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

    At first I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities. Now I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's going to get one!

    It might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what was underneath? Well, exploring my opponent's background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you can possibly imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. And even in his childhood!

    Let us take a very quick look at that childhood: It is a known fact that, on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys at a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate in their presence, but even urged him to do so. Most explicable of all, this man who poses as a paragon of virtue exacerbated his own sister when they were both teenagers!

    I ask you, my fellow Americans: is this the kind of person we want in public office to set an example for our youth?

    Of course, it's not surprising that he should have such a typically pristine background--no, not when you consider the other members of his family:

    His female relatives put on a constant pose of purity and innocence, and claim they are inscrutable, yet every one of them has taken part in hortatory activities.

    The men in the family are likewise completely amenable to moral suasion.

    My opponent's uncle was a flagrant heterosexual.

    His sister, who has always been obsessed by sects, once worked as a proselyte outside a church.

    His father was secretly chagrined at least a dozen times by matters of a pecuniary nature.

    His youngest brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a homo sapien.

    His great-aunt expired from a degenerative disease.

    His nephew subscribes to a phonographic magazine.

    His wife was a thespian before their marriage and even performed the act in front of paying customers.

    And his own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

    Now what shall we say about the man himself?

    I can tell you in solemn truth that he is the very antithesis of political radicalism, economic irresponsibility and personal depravity. His own record proves that he has frequently discountenanced treasonable, un-American philosophies and has perpetrated many overt acts as well.

    He perambulated his infant on the street.

    He practiced nepotism with his uncle and first cousin.

    He attempted to interest a 13-year-old girl in philately.

    He participated in a seance at a private residence where, among other odd goings-on, there was incense.

    He has declared himself in favor of more homogeneity on college campuses.

    He has advocated social intercourse in mixed company - and has taken part in such gatherings himself.

    He has been deliberately averse to crime in our city streets.

    He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes.

    Last summer he committed a piscatorial act on a boat that was flying the U.S. flag.

    Finally, at a time when we must be on our guard against all foreign isms, he has cooly announced his belief in altruism - and his fervent hope that some day this entire nation will be altruistic!

    I beg you,
  • by scheming daemons (101928) on Monday November 06, 2006 @05:17PM (#16741497)
    If you vote Democratic, are you guilty of their sins?

    No... but if you vote Democratic on a Diebold voting machine, your vote has a pretty good chance of being recorded as a Republican vote.

  • by davido42 (956948) on Monday November 06, 2006 @05:21PM (#16741573) Homepage Journal
    We have a name for Republicans like you. We call them... Democrats. Come on in! The water's fine! Sure, we might not have the best scandals or beer at our parties, but hell, somebody's got to govern this place.

    I never thought I would look back at the Reagan era with nostalgia.

    http://www.bitworksmusic.com/ [bitworksmusic.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 06, 2006 @05:37PM (#16741989)
    Heh... it looks like the republicans have you terrified to allow anybody else to run the country. Does that make them terrorists?
  • by why-is-it (318134) on Monday November 06, 2006 @05:41PM (#16742137) Homepage Journal
    If you vote Democrat you are NOT going to like it unless of course you want us to cut and run in Iraq (and let another Saddam come to power..or worse), ignore the NK threat, pay higher taxes (1st thing Dems will do is repeal the Bush tax cuts, especially the child tax credit), see Wall Street go DOWN, increase the chance for another 9/11, see all progress on illegal immigration stop (they want illegals..another class to keep down with handouts from the Democrats..the second chance at the Great Society ideal that has not worked for 40 yrs). Bite your tounge on such a minor disagreement and go vote for the RIGHT candidate.

    You forgot to mention that every time someone votes against a Republican, God kills a kitten AND a puppy.

  • by leoc (4746) on Monday November 06, 2006 @05:46PM (#16742241) Homepage
    A vote for the Democrats is a vote for baby eating! (*)

    (*) This message brought to you by the Republican Never-Ate-A-Baby Committee.
  • by felix rayman (24227) on Tuesday November 07, 2006 @05:01AM (#16749245)
    public class Economics101
    {

            public static void main( String args[] )
            {
                    double debt = 10;
                    double GDP = 1000;
                    double gdpGrowthRate = .03;
                    double treasuryYield = .05;
                    double debtOverGdp = debt / GDP;

                    System.out.println( "Debt=" + debt + " GDP=" + GDP + " debt/GDP=" + ( debt/GDP ) );
                    System.out.println( "tick....tick....tick...." );

                    boolean idiot = false;
                    while( idiot == false )
                    {
                            debt = debt + ( debt * treasuryYield );
                            GDP = GDP + ( GDP * gdpGrowthRate );
                            if ( debt > GDP )
                            {
                                    idiot = true;
                                    System.out.println( "Debt=" + debt + " GDP=" + GDP + " debt/GDP=" + ( debt/GDP ) );
                                    System.out.println( "Stop voting Republican you god damn retard!" );
                                    System.out.println( "And stop talking about things you don't understand!" );
                                    /* And don't start with some bullshit about how GDP is
                                    going to grow at a rate higher than the treasury yield.
                                    Hasn't happened since 1966, isn't going to start
                                    happening now. Except maybe in China. */
                            }
                    }
            }

    }

Staff meeting in the conference room in 3 minutes.

Working...