For example, Democrats do often recast Republican supported bills into new bills with new Dem sponsors to take the credit. So… some can believe their arguments that Love has supported bills that eventually passed, while others make the point with conviction that no, Love has not sponsored these bills that passed.

Another example: one side will cast somebody who voted for Amendment One in 2003 as voting for increasing taxes and somebody who voted against it someone who votes against taxes.

The other side may say a candidate voted for Amendment One because it gave the people the right to have their say on the matter and that it was not otherwise a vote for taxes; it allowed for the people’s will to be heard. They may say that somebody who voted against Amendment One was voting against the people’s right to speak on the issue, and why would that candidate vote against the will of the people being heard?

These things cut both ways. Take different interpretations, mix in supporters’ passions for their candidates, and it can be a combustible mix while the truth is often in the middle.

No one will later regret being civil and kind over these matters, I am confident.

“When our politicians try to deceive us, when they slant reality or dumb down the details, it makes us want to turn off the television and put down the newspaper. It chips away at our faith in democracy.”

I do not believe either of them is the best possible congressional candidate for this district. But neither of them has based their campaign on untruths, as I know Jay Love to have done.

If Jay ran on his actual record and confesssed to the way he beat Bob McKee, hey I might even support him. But he is being deliberately dishonest, and that is the worst possible path to Washington.

I would like to point out that several posts back I challenged you to find something ion my posts that was not true, as you kept calling me a “liar.”

You still have nor done so. I guesxs I have repeated that challenge “ad nauseum” as you have kept referring to my posts – all factual – as “lies” ad nauseum.

I have not lied on this board, and I highly resent you calling me a liar – especially as you have not shown anything I have advanced on this board to be a lie. Not once.

Anzalone will cite chapter and verse on all the untruths whether Harri Anne’s people do or not. That is why Mike Hubbard sounded silly when he told Smith to lay off of his buddy Jay. I don’t think Bright will spare Love the roundhouses . . .

This stuff will come out. I am shocked it hasn’t been used earlier. If David Grimes had tghe money, you an be sure the real Jay Love would have been introduced to the 2nd district in the primary.

They’ll know the real Jay by November.

As an example, in my world a “lie” is something that is untrue. If something is fact-based – such as the fact that Jay Love has never sponsored and passed a tax cut – then it, by definition, cannot be a lie.

In the world of Jay Love, hovever, a “lie” is anything that casts a bad light on Jay. Truth is divorced from Love’s concept of a “lie.” So if something is factual, it could still be a “lie” in Jay’s world.

I remember a regime that had a similar idea of what a “lie” was to Jay’s. They published a newpaper they called “Truth” . . .or, as it was called in the native language, “Pravda” . . .