[bbronston]

I agree but if you ask most Democrat voters if Scott stole money from Medicare and then pleaded the fifth 70-something times during the criminal investigation, I would bet at the minimum, 95% would agree. The truth is that he was never officially questioned in the investigation, the interview where he followed his attorney's advice to invoke the fifth took place long after he was gone from HCA, and it had nothing to do with the Medicare fraud investigation. It took place as part of a civil suit by a communications company regarding a contract. Yet, that is not at all what the Democrats have brainwashed the voters with who neither have the time nor inclination to look beyond the TV attack. If you listen very carefully to the announcer's words, intermingled with the video, you can see how they can technically get away with the misrepresentation but it is a reprehensible, cynical, desperate way of trying to win.

On the other hand, when you see commercials where Crist is shown flip-flopping back and forth on just about everything, including his opinion on President Clinton, the case for his being the worst kind of political hack is clearly self-evident, and the last people who should fall for his nonsense are the Democrats.

[miamifloridafan]

I Won't be voting for either rick scott nor charlie crist, I'll vote for adrian wyllie, both of these clowns are corrupt.

[Rogerluli]

I'm not voting for Rick Scott because he is one of the ugliest human beings on the planet...

[miamifloridafan]

Originally Posted by Rogerluli

I'm not voting for Rick Scott because he is one of the ugliest human beings on the planet...

charlie crist is just as bad.

Adrian wyllie is the only one that stays within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.

[beachmouse]

You know your political ad lacks substance wen the main discussion about it is whether they made the candidate look less orange in post-production.

[chopchop0]

Originally Posted by miamifloridafan

I Won't be voting for either rick scott nor charlie crist, I'll vote for adrian wyllie, both of these clowns are corrupt.

Smart move. Did the same in early voting.

[tallrick]

Don't vote for Mr Burns. A friend calls him Governor Voldemort. I hate the fact his first name is Rick, it gives the rest of us a bad name.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I agree but if you ask most Democrat voters if Scott stole money from Medicare and then pleaded the fifth 70-something times during the criminal investigation, I would bet at the minimum, 95% would agree. The truth is that he was never officially questioned in the investigation, the interview where he followed his attorney's advice to invoke the fifth took place long after he was gone from HCA, and it had nothing to do with the Medicare fraud investigation. It took place as part of a civil suit by a communications company regarding a contract. Yet, that is not at all what the Democrats have brainwashed the voters with who neither have the time nor inclination to look beyond the TV attack. If you listen very carefully to the announcer's words, intermingled with the video, you can see how they can technically get away with the misrepresentation but it is a reprehensible, cynical, desperate way of trying to win.

On the other hand, when you see commercials where Crist is shown flip-flopping back and forth on just about everything, including his opinion on President Clinton, the case for his being the worst kind of political hack is clearly self-evident, and the last people who should fall for his nonsense are the Democrats.

Please, you're smarter than this. I'll give you the fact that the bit is flawed, as are all the attack ads from both sides, but to think for one moment that somehow the REP is any better than the DEM is purely a matter of interpretation, IE partisanship...

[Travelassie]

Originally Posted by HarryWho?

Wouldn't you have to say that it's the same for the "mindless " chants from the other side which appear even more frequently? Once the mud starts to fly, no one stays clean...

I was referring to the article, and the overwhelming tendency for people NOT to do their own research on a given candidate, but who simply accept the talking points of their political party, which consist of nothing but a few "factoids" taken out of context, exaggerated, or fabricated for no other reason than to discredit the candidate ( they persist in the erroneous notion that doing so makes the candidates on their side look better, somehow). In passing along the official party "slams" against the opposition candidate, these folks fancy others will think they are informed on the topic, or candidate, I guess. I don't think they realize how this shows their ignorance.

[HarryWho?]

Originally Posted by Travelassie

I was referring to the article, and the overwhelming tendency for people NOT to do their own research on a given candidate, but who simply accept the talking points of their political party, which consist of nothing but a few "factoids" taken out of context, exaggerated, or fabricated for no other reason than to discredit the candidate ( they persist in the erroneous notion that doing so makes the candidates on their side look better, somehow). In passing along the official party "slams" against the opposition candidate, these folks fancy others will think they are informed on the topic, or candidate, I guess. I don't think they realize how this shows their ignorance.

But you stated Democratic candidates and their supporters. "Political" candidates and their supporters would imply your supposed meaning. As is, it's a partisan rant.