Hmm, I was mistaken. The first time I was playing around with it, the image wasn’t scaling with width, so I used that to assume the height of the browser (by assuming the bottom left hand must be visible on the “actual” screen), without that I can’t really say the browser window was large enough. I also miscalculated the browser size on a smaller monitor, after adjusting it, the text ends up below the fold along with ~1/4th of the button, just as CarlMud said.
So I feel dumb.
Well for both us and you Cousins, when other countries carry on like that, we generally start with airstrikes. I’m prepared to entertain the idea…
All of them should be locked out of heaven and their evolution cards revoked.
Classy retardlicans, classy.
It will be so awesome to watch the faces on the GOP die-hards when a woman becomes the new president in place of a two-term black guy.
The only way the knobs will be able to fundraise in future is by pretending to be the opposition.
Yeah… you’re being purposefully misleading with your commentary, which doesn’t reflect the links.
Sorry bud… not buying it. For someone who does responsive design you seem painfully unaware that a user’s experience of a site is determined by a number of factors: browser type, OS type, Personal customisation & toolbar add-ons.
Here are some screenshots from a site that simulates screen res which expressly disprove what you’re claiming. It’s only when you hit 1024px height that you can see below the donate button. So, using your reference page, that means the first popular screen size that would pick the parody line up is 1920x1080 (which accounts for 8.3% of total users). The guys on the 3 resolutions above that wouldn’t see it (26.37+10.06+9.06 = 45.49%). You also presume that people with large displays always browse with the window maximised.
1024x768
1366x768
1280x800
1280x1024
I personally think they should even be allowed to make a Kirkpatrick site, even it is obvious or not it is against the person. Each party should be limited to making sites for their own candidates period. this is very sleazy no matter how you slice it.
To answer your first two questions: yes.
To answer your last question: they have no good candidates and even fewer ideas, let alone good ones.
Since it’s not actually fraud (not reading the fine print is your own fault, from a legal standpoint), or at the very least not clearly so. I suspect plenty of CC companies will actually refuse to reverse the charges.
I think these sites constitute a frank admission that Republicans can’t win - can’t even raise funds - without cheating. But they admitted that in 2000, in Florida.
Republicans feel that this kind of horseshit is “okay” because many, many, MANY of them truly believe themselves and the party itself to be instruments of god - And, therefore, the annoying and inconvenient laws of the “corrupt” and the “sinners” who oppose the GOP do not apply to them. Only the laws with which THEY agree (and even then, when it is convenient to do so) are “valid”.
Kill them all, I say.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
