I think it would be ok to say Michael Vick was convicted of animal cruelty..but that is not the way a current candidate would say it. They would say something like "A million animals were killed this week. Michael Vick supports animal cruelty". The distortion of the second example is what needs to go away.
I've starting replying to all emails from my acquaintances that contain this kind of spin with the following: "Facts. What are the facts? Do you know the source of this information and do you absolutely know it to be true? If not, you are spreading propaganda for some group and have voluntarily become a tool of their agenda." Boy it pisses a lot of people off. On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > If your opponent had pertinent information about their background, say > Michael Vick runs for office and we think it is important to mention > that he has an animal abuse background, should the opponent not get to > mention that? Would you leave it to outside groups but not allow the > candidate? Should no one be allowed to say negative things but only > positive ones? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:330520 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
