Is it justified to use false attacks in politics to get an opponent defeated?

A lot of this is happening in campaign 2008, especially against Obama.





What does this show about the ethics of US politics?Is it justified to use false attacks in politics to get an opponent defeated?
Justified or not, it's been used forever in politics. Especially, when they can't find the facts against the opponent (so they invent them instead).Is it justified to use false attacks in politics to get an opponent defeated?
False attacks are just part of politics, but a whole lot of what is being said about Obama is true whether or not you believe it.
It is happening to everyone, its part of what you get when you sign up, dirty laundry gets exposed, rumors get started. All the candidates know what they're getting into and the media buys it up and so do the american people
ethics and politics is an oxymoron.
Another Obama-ite that only sees the mud being smeared on his candidate.
It shows the ethics in politics are very poor. It's been that way for a long time. The public has to educate itself about the candidates and the issues and try to figure out the facts. Cheap political tactics only pay dividends when the voters are uninformed.
it shows this country has no ethics.


they'll go to any means to get what they


want. be it right or wrong.


the answer to your question is no.
US politics is highly unethical. For example, 9-11 was orchestrated to launch wars of aggression against the people of iraq and afghanistan.





The campaign against obama is done on two grounds he: 1) is black, 2) has a muslim middlename, clear textbook racism (many will not tell u, however, they will not vote for him because he is black so they tend to blame it on his middle name believing they have a strong point being racist against muslims because the US has wars (of aggression) against them).