|
|
Bill brought up this idea:
If you attack Hillary, you're a sexist.
If you attack McCain, you're an ageist.
If you attack Obama, you're a racist.
How do you defend yourself against these labels when you have clear concerns about the candidates?
|
Posts:
1,504
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(2 of 2)
Re: Who Can Be Criticised without the "Attack" Classification?
Mar 8, 2008 12:54 AM
|
Easy. You don't attack.
Just stick to the issues. State what you would do, or what you want your preferred candidate to do. Or not do.
If the candidate disagrees, they can explain.
This affords an opportunity to refute whatever logic they may be using, if you can.
|
|
|
Posts:
385
Registered:
1/17/08
|
|
(1 of 2)
Who Can Be Criticised without the "Attack" Classification?
Mar 8, 2008 12:03 AM
|
Bill brought up this idea:
If you attack Hillary, you're a sexist.
If you attack McCain, you're an ageist.
If you attack Obama, you're a racist.
How do you defend yourself against these labels when you have clear concerns about the candidates?
|
|
|
|
|
