THanks for the information. I occasionally research claims, and almost always find they are misleading or flat-out wrong, and it takes so much time to research that i just started ignoring them.
After all, if it takes me an hour to learn the truth about one claim, I thinking whoever is posting it didn’t take the 20 hours it would have needed to research the 20 claims they are making. So if the first one I look at is wrong, I assume they all are.
My example here to add to yours was the outrageous claim that Santorum voted FOR a pro-abortion bill, when in fact he voted FOR the motion to TABLE the bill. Someone didn’t know what the vote meant, so they just wrote a long screed about how unprincipled Santorum was. And when it was corrected on three separate threads posted about it, not ONE of the three who posted the original information apologized for misleading their fellow conservatives.
I sometimes will repeat something that turns out to be false — but I am scrupulous about correcting false statements of fact. I don’t want to win voters to my position by lying to them, and it still shocks me that others feel “by any means necessary” is an ethical, moral, or civilized way to argue.
I think like you do. I developed as much information as I could about John McCain. I went to every report and tried to evaluate the truth of it. If I couldn’t make a determination, I left it out. If someone challenged a point, and I could verify their challenge, I removed it.
Here we have a guy knowingly spamming Free Republic with things he knows are untrue. Then all the while he’s doing it, folks are being asked not to be critical of Newt.
If this guy thinks this endears me to Newt, he’s sadly mistaken.
Your example sounds bad too. I checked out another charge, and the link was to a bill totally unrelated to the charge made against Santorum.
This screed against Santorum is very problematic. I agree with your take on what your thoughts are when you start seeing serious credibility problems.