Michelle wolf, Sarah huckabee, and the WHCD

[Dill]

(05-03-2018, 11:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not really interested in the opinions of people who abandon their professional ethics in the name of partisan politics.

I'm sure some of his policy goals align with yours as well.  You have accused me of being right wing due to my failure to toe the ideological purity line many seem to demand nowadays.

I'm not a victim of anything, you've accused me of being right wing.  I'll admit you do it in a very underhanded, duplicitous and plausibly deniable way, but you have done it.  It's also not about "proving you wrong".  It's about being accurate and not partisan.

LOL. So today you don't have to read and address the arguments of mental health professionals if you are sure they "abandon professional ethics in the name of partisan politics."   Sounds like a partisan rejection of dialogue couched as upholding a standard of non-partisanship. Not a particularly good standard if "it's about being accurate."  

One can easily be "right wing" without supporting Trump. Noting your consistent defense of right wing positions is not the same as calling you a Trump supporter, which I have never done; So why talk about "further proof" in my mind that you are a Trump supporter--other than to set up a straw man and grouse about a mislabeling that has not occurred? Why the need to position yourself as victim of something which has never occurred?

Ha ha, I don't think you can provide an example of me accusing you "being right wing" in some "underhanded, duplicitous and plausibly deniable way." Why would there be any need for such "underhandedness"?

Why would I want to "plausibly deny" that I said some one who consistently defends right wing positions and affect is right wing?