Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: You are either a Freeper or a Purity-Test Democrat [View all]woo me with science
(32,139 posts)65. It's the *definition* of guilt by association. What's your smear here, Josh?
Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 10:49 AM - Edit history (4)
I stand by every post I've written, and I'm sure I did agree with many of the points HiPointDem made about economic or war or education or environmental policies. But you just tried to associate me with a DUer you made a point of mentioning has been banned, as though that discredits me somehow.
You and HiPointDem posted the same crap on a continual basis. There's no "association" about it.
What "same crap" did we post, Josh? Be specific. *You* brought up the PPR as though it were relevant to my posting. What are you trying to imply about me?
Let's cut to the chase: HiPointDem was PPRed for homophobic posts. Not for anything else.
You bring up his name here, out of all the hundreds and maybe even thousands of posters I have agreed with here on economic or war policy, in order to point out that he was PPRed and that I often posted in agreement with him. That is a guilt-by-association smear of the ugliest, most vicious type. I defy you to find *any* expression of homophobia from me, *ever.* Yet you used *his* ban, for behavior that had NOTHING to do with the issues on which we agreed, to try to disgrace me.
It is a guilt-by-association tactic for the sole purpose of discrediting me, and it's despicable.
Now, I don't know what Manny agreed with Udall on, but I think it's very telling that, rather than identify the specific issue, you impugn his motives by saying he made a "Udall supportive post." That is how the brigade operates....always smear by association, while avoiding talking about the actual policies. It's the same twisted, personality-rather-than-policy-based manipulation/argumentation by which we get those ludicrous Third Way proclamations by some here insinuating that because Ron Paul opposes something (e.g., spying, the drug wars, drone murder...), we should support it.
Frankly, I'm sick of it, and I'm disgusted to see it coming from you.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
102 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hillary did. That is my reason for never supporting her. My conscience wouldn't allow it. There are
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#90
This garbage again, implying that putting SS cuts on the table has done no harm?
woo me with science
Mar 2014
#69
Or temporarily removing them during election season because they are so UNPOPULAR with voters
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#82
This site was started to fight Republicans. Why did Obama appoint so many Republicans to his cabinet
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#26
I have not read it. But I know what it is about. Lincoln appointed some of his rivals to his
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#50
No, it is not within the power of the President to add more justices to the SC. Congress,
kelly1mm
Mar 2014
#49
It's the *definition* of guilt by association. What's your smear here, Josh?
woo me with science
Mar 2014
#65
You cannot be discredited here by ANYONE calling themselves a Democrat so I wouldn't worry about it,
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#80
Do Purity-Test Democrats have to attend some kind of a Ball? If so, do they have a choice who
adirondacker
Mar 2014
#30
the third way wants unicorns and ponies, all manufactured in low wage Asian sweatshops
pragmatic_dem
Mar 2014
#86