I won't kick candidate threads that are no more than snarky smears

[bigtree]

I won't kick them (anymore), even with the most thoughtful reply. The best course is to let them sink from the weight of their own loaded nonsense. This hit and run smear game is a tactic that has run its course. Most of the same actors are involved.

We have a great need to define the differences between these candidates and we better do that with supportable facts. Not with rumor and innuendo. These slashing, fact less posts serve only to define the poster, not the candidates. They should be ignored.

[wryter2000]

1. Heck

I won't even read 'em.

[bigtree]

2. I'm learning, wryter2000

[lovedems]

3. Me neither.

I want to know why I should vote for a particular candidtate, not why I shouldn't.

[emulatorloo]

4. Agreed - but thanks for your great posts

I read them w great admiration for your conciseness and articulateness

:toast:

[bigtree]

5. How dare you

make me smile? :D

[Guaranteed]

6. Do you consider criticizing Kerry and Edwards for their IWR votes

a snarky smear?

[bigtree]

7. Naw

I will always respond to posts that attempt to portray that vote as pro-war.

But, you already know that.

[emulatorloo]

8. A legit issue

but sometimes just posted as a hit-and-run slam without a desire for genuine dialog.

So I am gonna try harder to discriminate between real and snarky