Braude always like to point at the Leguer and Songer ads are based on facts to which no one disputes. However, no one ever points out that the intent of the ads is specifically not to set forth facts, but in fact, to present a falsity in the mind of the viewer by presenting the negative aspects in a most loaded way while conveniently leaving out other facts which would enable the viewer to understand the truth of the matter.
Isn’t that the most insidious form of dishonesty? An ad specifically designed to mislead the viewer clothed in terms of the “Facts,” I’m surprised that Braude doesn’t seem to understand that.
btw: I wish people would stop giving Wendy Murphy a forum. She adds nothing. Using her logic, prisoners are never allowed to assert their innocence, unless they are actually innocent. We know that they are innocent because . . .Duh, How would we ever know? In law school we call this type of reasoning circular.
Well, we know witches sink and innocents float right? Witches also burn and innocents surely do not…So, why don’t we use these methods to determine who is innocent and who isn’t…?
<
p>
Just light LeGuer on fire and see if he burns. Or weight him with a rock, throw him in a pond, and see if he floats! After all, if you’re not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? Unless of course you’re suspected, in which case you’ll have to be almost burned and/or drowned but…It’s a small price to pay for public safety!
<
p>
-This message brought to you by Healey/Hillman ’06-
To 25%.
<
p>
This must be the “witches sink strategy” I keep hearing about.
<
p> – Dan
Don’t let the old facts get in the way, Democrats. If an accussed witch sank, then she was presumed innocent. If she floated, then she was a witch. Typical, well read Dems. But , Like devil, I mean Deval, whoops, you Dems. can’t recall. (2000 election, whether you voted or not, you still had an opinion on the tax roll back, didn’t you?) GO MIHOS!