The negative campaign is a very effective and persuasive tool, provided you are honest in pointing out the adversaries’ flaw. But some are so proficient at the negative campaign they can imply falsehoods and tell outright lies and become successive with their spin. Clinton comes to mind and I suspect Rags are following close behind. The "Can't we all just get along crowd" just wants to hear what pleases them. That crowd has no interest in inequity or impropriety. All they care about is what can you do for me today? But if a combatant turns the other check and tries to just get along in the face of an attack. He's gonna lose. Always has always will. Clinton was so good at it when they came after him on Perjury, Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Office all generated by Usurious Pathological Sexual Behavior he responded by pointing out with the aid of his colleague Larry Flint that most men have sexual motivations. It was a canard or red herring, but many people lacked the acumen to see the real issue was about an accosted female employee and a man’s evasion of his conduct in her lawsuit before a Federal Court of Law. The analogy is not perfect, T-Graph appears to be the wronged party and is hitting back on point, but the point is: "Tell us throwing mud back hurt Clinton."