How could a word make something you did "invalid", "without merit", or anything else? Words describe what a person's opinion is OF something, not the other way around. Words are the description, not the definition.
Posting a cut-and-paste multi-page item to multiple threads based on the candidate being discussed in the threads is called "spamming" here; it's the word used to describe that action. You could easily put that information on your home page, and put a link to it here, or put it in it's own thread, and put a link the thread.
Or, you could try to be the second person in the thread, and post your huge comment to the thread in the hopes it discourages people from commenting in the thread, or allows you to hijack the thread from discussing the article posted to disscussing your article. But then you might get people commenting on your tactic.
If your interest was in providing vital information for the election, you wouldn't have dismissed the idea of putting a similar sheet together for Gingrich. Because you expect other people to do that, it is clear your intent is to discourage supporters of other candidates in the hopes it helps your candidate. That's fine, but don't pretend it's a "public service", just admit it's partisan advocacy and be proud of it.
I'd like to think conservatives would vote with their heads, not their hearts, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Yeah, I could, but I've been reading here long enough to know that very few would follow the link. Better to paste the entire thing into a thread where more people will actually read it. And I know they do, because many have thanked me for posting Santorum's voting record.
I'd like to think conservatives would vote with their heads, not their hearts, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
I've repeatedly posted that copy of Santorum's voting record into multiple threads, precisely to give conservatives the data to make an informed choice. Now, the fact that you're complaining about it only says that you're not really interested in conservatives voting with their heads. You're angry because I'm exposing something which is discomforting to you.
I've already responded that I'm fully aware of Newt Gingrich's past transgressions against our commonly held conservative ideals, and that they irritated me just as much as they irritated any other conservative here. I've also stated that I believe the good he did while in office, far outweighs his errors and mistakes.
So, there it is. Go ahead and compile a list of Gingrich's voting record and 'spam' it to the forum if you like. I won't complain. It's what vetting these candidates is all about.