Archive for cheating – Page 2

Dep't. of How Fitting: Online dating, extramarital affairs website features Mark Sanford as poster boy


mark sanford adutlery dating servicePhoto via WCSC-TV

affair service adultery SanfordVia

WCSC-TV has the best article ever about a dating service that has chosen Mark "Pretends Not To Hear Colbert-Busch’s Dig About His Affair During South Carolina Debate" Sanford to represent them.

But this isn't just any ordinary website. This one matchmakes (that is now a word) people who are on an infidelity hunt. They are featuring Mark Hiking the Appalachian Trail but Really with Argentine “Soul Mate” Sanford as their Very Special Poster Boy for an ad campaign to market their, erm, "products" to like-minded cheaters, just like Mark!


"Forgiving and forgetting" was never so much fun! But remember, don't tell the kids!

And how ironic that the billboard juxtaposes the word "use" right next to Sanford's gigantic lying mug, as in "Use Sanford"... just the way he used everyone in his life.

Here's what the service has posted on the front page of their site, in a very small, teeny tiny font:

Ashley Madison is the most famous name in infidelity and married dating. As seen on Hannity, Howard Stern, TIME, BusinessWeek, Sports Illustrated, Maxim, USA Today. Ashley Madison is the most recognized and reputable married dating company.Our Married Dating Services for Married individuals Work. Ashley Madison is the most successful website for finding an affair and cheating partners. Have an Affair today on Ashley Madison. Thousands of cheating wives and cheating husbands signup everyday looking for an affair. ...

weeee smaller

It goes on from there. Please click over to read it all. As for Mark "How YOU doin'" Sanford, how's that God Forgives Me campaign workin' for ya?

timing is everything smaller


Mitt Romney: Commander-in-Cheat?


UPDATE: This post is not a comment on President Obama's performance one way or another. The questions raised have nothing to do with how he did. This is about Romney and only Romney.

So there I was on Twitter last night, minding my own beeswax, when suddenly I got all kinds of tweets asking me if Willard M. Romney brought notes to the debate. If he did, that's against the rules. If he did, it's a quite a statement about what's left of his character, if anything. If he did, then he's even sleazier and more dishonest than I thought.

The Big Question o' the Day is: Did he or didn't he? I retort, you deride:

All you need to watch is the first 11 seconds.

UPDATE: Here it is in slo-mo, h/t @MzYun:

More video here.

I wasn't going to post about this, but the story is growing, and now Los Angeles radio hosts are all over it, among others. So what do you think?

H/t: Mo'Kelly, host on KTLK radio for "Commander-In-Cheat"


In a First, Debates Give Presidential Candidates the Topics Ahead Of Time


Back in the olden days, this was called cheating.

Are the presidential debates in danger of becoming as scripted as professional wrestling?

Wednesday afternoon, the Commission on Presidential Debates quietly posted a press release announcing the topics for the first presidential debate in Denver on October 3. What the commission didn't say is that this may be the first time in history presidential candidates have been given the topics of a debate ahead of time.

"We had been thinking about this for awhile," says CPD executive director Janet Brown. "CPD's intention is to have the candidates come prepared for a more in-depth conversation."


Though specific questions were not given, debate moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS NewsHour announced the topics of the questions on the commission Web site, saying that three questions will be on the economy, one on health care, one on the role of government and one on governing.

"Romney, Obama debates to be more controlled and duller than usual,"
election reform blog Democracy Chronicles warned Thursday.


VIDEO: Team Romney edits video aimed at black voters to show NAACP audience applauding


“We need in our next president someone who will be honest, open and transparent.”

In that case, don't vote for Willard M. Romney.

I watched as he spoke at the NAACP. He was booed. He got tepid applause. The audience was polite, not enthusiastic. Did I mention he got booed?

Think Progress:

95 percent of black voters went to President Obama in 2008 and it is highly unlikely Romney will be able to capture the historically progressive demographic. In fact, an NAACP official told MSNBC that the Romney campaign brought their own African American supporters to fill in the July 11 event. Romney himself admitted that he expected to be booed.

After the disastrous time he's been having in "the nation of Great Britain", and now this edit job, it's clearer than ever that Romney's a desperate and inferior candidate and he knows it.

Then again, he edits the president and gets away with it, so we can't become complacent.

And now, because it’s election season and we’ll be extra busy, we GottaAsk. We do so reluctantly and would love to reach our goal so we can stop asking already!

Please note: You can chip in to help TPC using the widget below via PayPal or major credit cards.


Democrats cry foul early into Election Day; Sen. Taylor demands investigation


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This last video is infuriating. Then again, Glenn Grothman is always way over the top.

As was pointed out last night, claims are being made by the Milwaukee Democratic Party that voters are getting calls telling them they don't have to vote if they signed the recall petition.



Meanwhile, State Sen. Lena Taylor, D-Milwaukee, sent a letter to Government Accountability Board Director Kevin Kennedy asking for an investigation into that alleged call and another that claimed the election was Wednesday.

There are also reports of Walker supporters paying homeowners to post Walker signs on their lawns.

The GOP apparently feels they have to resort to cheating and dirty tricks in order to win, despite the multi-millions they've spent to defeat the unions, teachers, women's rights, and of course, Dems in general.

Let's hope with everything we've got that our grassroots efforts will pay off, and prove that money can't buy everything.


Team Romney "regularly leaves out the less-flattering paragraphs" from newspaper endorsements


Why am I not in the least bit surprised?


The Romney campaign likes to send out editorials from local papers that endorse Mitt Romney but regularly leaves out the less-flattering paragraphs. Two paragraphs were left out of the latest editorial sent out by the campaign.

You'll have to link over for the details.

What integrity. What honesty. What... a joke.

Team Willard's response is their typical line of bullMitt.


Study: Wealthy, motivated by greed, are more likely to cheat


Today the L.A. Times posted an article about what happens when you get rich. Okay, it's not quite about that. It's about how the wealthy differ from people who aren't. And by differ, I mean that the 1%ers do more cheating and commit other dishonest acts than their 99%er counterparts.


This is not to say all wealthy people are rats, and all non-wealthy types aren't. But the study is fascinating.

They literally take candy from babies, according to Paul Piff, the study's lead author:

The rich really are different from the rest of us, scientists have found — they are more apt to commit unethical acts because they are more motivated by greed.

People driving expensive cars were more likely than other motorists to cut off drivers and pedestrians at a four-way-stop intersection in the San Francisco Bay Area, UC Berkeley researchers observed. Those findings led to a series of experiments that revealed that people of higher socioeconomic status were also more likely to cheat to win a prize, take candy from children and say they would pocket extra change handed to them in error rather than give it back.

Because rich people have more financial resources, they're less dependent on social bonds for survival, the Berkeley researchers reported Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. As a result, their self-interest reigns and they have fewer qualms about breaking the rules.

Because the rich are more insulated, they're more likely they are to act in "insensitive" ways. So those bubbles they inhabit can create... dun-dun-dun-n-n...

Interesting that the words "self-interest" were also mentioned, since those are the very words so many have used to describe the grabbiest of the GOP grabby, the one percentiest of the 1%ers, the corporatiest of the corporate (Dems, you're no angels either).

Interestingly, anyone who acquires a lot of money is susceptible to this behavior. They undergo a noticeable psychological change, apparently.

Another point made by Piff in earlier studies: Wealthy people were less likely to act generously than relatively impoverished people. Well, except for our evil Marxist socialist "food stamp president" right? He says "Yes" to a whole lot more people and their needs than the Party of No ever will.

Then again, President Obama, unlike, say... Willard Romney, wasn't born with a silver foot in his mouth.

More details here.