(click to zoom)
We haven't stumbled upon anyone who understands exactly what this mailer is trying to say, since it seems to contain two arguments that are at odds. Read the second and third paragraphs and try to sort it out.
On the one hand we can't decide if by opposite they mean they're looking for a negation or contrapositive; but on the other we're pretty sure we've spent more time trying to make sense of it than they did writing it. (The truth? The opposite, of course... whatever that means.)
The one certainty is that they couldn't have phrased it in less awkward terms. Who is writing these things?
"The one certainty is that they couldn't have phrased it in less awkward terms."
Is this what you meant to say? Surely we have a double negative at work here.
I agree that the ad is confusing at best.
Posted by: twitter.com/Standlow | March 25, 2011 at 08:56 PM
What is interesting is that the well funded pro campaign has chosen to attack the unknown lightly funded NO campaign. A possible example would be Sam Graves attacking his 2010 general opponent. Graves didn't attack. why? His opponent was an underfunded candidate with no name ID or platform appealing to the 6th. Thus, the Pro or yes folks must be worried. E TAX is a GONER !!
Posted by: Missourian | March 26, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Dissonance and obfuscation is at the core of a Liberal's mindset.
A tree is known by its fruit.
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 | March 29, 2011 at 09:26 AM