When someone says something, it's unfair to respond with something they said almost 3 years ago

[CreekDog]

MR. CARVIN: Well, three points. One is we know textually that they thought Exchanges without subsidies work, because again, they have territorial Exchanges, but the government concedes no subsidies.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Carvin, that's not ­­what you said previously when you were here last time in this never­ending saga. You said the ­­without the subsidies driving demand within the Exchanges, insurance companies would have absolutely no reason to offer their products through Exchanges. And then you said the insurance Exchanges cannot operate as intended by Congress absent the subsidies.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-114_lkhn.pdf

Or is it? Was it unfair of her to point out something he said almost 3 years ago?

Nah, it's fair.

[Still Sensible]

1. Not at all n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. No. a hypocrite must be confronted.

[sabrina 1]

3. So long as it was an accurate accounting of what was said. And that she didn't try to spin it to

make his words mean something they did not mean.

I'm assuming she was properly representing his position at the time and pointing out that it had apparently, changed.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. Is Kagan known for that? spinning and twisting?

[sabrina 1]

5. Did I say that? The OP asked a question as to whether it is alright to go back

three years and use what they said back then in a current discussion.

My response was pretty clear, 'no' so long as it isn't done for nefarious purposes, as is done here on DU, to me personally, by five different people in an attempt to twist those comments from several years ago into something they were not. All five failed in that endeavor, nevertheless it is apparently a tactic used by less than honest people.

I then added a sentence regarding the way it was used in this situation. I ASSUMED she was not doing that. Mainly because I have never had any reason to think she would engage in such despicable practices.

[CreekDog]

7. actually she was referring to his credibility too

so it might seem like an unrelated or out of context reference, but if it shows that the person's credibility is suspect, then it's fair, no?

[CreekDog]

8. Oh, I know what you're saying, you meant the times you were criticizing Putin and Russia

It was unfair for someone to try to undermine your posts doing that with something unrelated to your criticisms of Putin and Russia.

I see what you mean.

[sabrina 1]

9. And there is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Here, let me make it simple for anyone

who stumbles on this thread.

I think most of us are very familiar with the tactic you just perfectly demonstrated, so thank you for that.

Here's how it went during the Iraq lies and now during the neocon attempt to start a war in Russia:

You opposed the Iraq War, you LOVED Saddam.

Rightwingers constantly demanded that you show where you had criticized Saddam.

Back then most on the Left opposed the neocon wars so you were not likely to experience those tactics on a Left forum.

However, times have changed and we are seeing the same tactics being used on Left forums, again, against the Left who still oppose neocon wars, in Iraq, Ukraine or anywhere else.

Now it goes like this:

You oppose the neocon involvement in trying to instigate a war with Russia:

You LOVE Putin!

And as demonstrated in your comment, the old Right Wing pro Iraq War Bush supporters' tactic, here let me quote you directly:

to try to undermine your posts doing that with something unrelated to your criticisms of Putin and Russia.

Iow, for those reading, a perfect example of 'why don't you criticize 'Saddam'?

I always love it when I don't have to engage in the right wing practice of searching the internet, usually unsuccessfully, for comments from the Left to PROVE how much they Loved Saddam or Gadaffi and currently Putin.

I like it when it's right there for all to see. Thank you for that.

Why are you using Right Wing tactics, against the Left on this forum?

You must know they do not work HERE, in fact we had little problem demolishing them back then also.

Now go right ahead and prove what you are implying, in such a devious way, that those who oppose a war with Russia, love Putin!

I'll wait, I'm still waiting for this proof for the other few who have engaged in the same tactic. I

[CreekDog]

10. I didn't say you loved Putin

I said you criticized him. Really tore him a new one about his imperialism towards the Ukraine.

[sabrina 1]

11. Exactly, you used the other Right Wing tactic I noted in my comment, 'why haven't you criticized

Saddam/Putin/Gadaffi.

And I asked you, which you have not yet responded to, why you are resorting to those right wing tactics against DUers who STILL oppose neocon wars?

Again, I'll wait for you to prove what you are carefully trying to cover in weasel words.

Because what you are saying is 'You love Putin so much you have never even criticized him'. Same old tactic, at least have the courage to say it rather than trying not to get a post hidden by attempting to say it without doing it OPENLY.

So, since you are making the accusation 'you love Putin' prove it!

[CreekDog]

12. I said you DID criticize Putin and Russia for their aggression towards The Ukraine

You did criticize him, roundly!

[Number23]

13. Yep, I was right to get my popcorn ready for this freak show

[Number23]

6. Is this just about what you put in the OP or about something else too??

[Skittles]

14. unless they have publicly stated a change of opinion and it is in context

anything they have said is fair game