This likely comes as no great surprise to much of anyone, but Dishonest Donald is lying. (So what else is new?)
Nowhere in the tweet he references do I ever say I'm "down with" anything Thom Hartman said in that particular show (or any show, ever...).
All I did was post a link to it...just like Dishonest Donald did, himself...only four days earlier, and to a podcast instead of a youtube post.
So if Dishonest Don believes my link means "I'm down with Thom," do you think he believes his own link mean the same, or is he once again claiming the rules are dependent on what he wants them to say, and that his link to that Thom Hartman show is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than mine, because it's only eeeeevil when other people post it?
One set of standards, for friend and foe alike. Please make a note of it.
Ya'know... I posted several tweets and links regarding Dishonest Don, today... Funny that he doesn't claim that means I'm down with what he posts, huh...
Situational ethics and standards, through and through... Things mean just exactly what Donald needs them to mean at that given moment, and nothing more or less... (And please pay no attention to the hypocrisy.)
And for the record, yeah, I also think Thom's "tax everything over 1 billion at 100%" is "seriously some f-ked up shit." But unlike Dishonest Don, I'm not afraid to listen to people I disagree with...and I don't need to demonize them, either.
If it was one of Dr. Donald Douglas’ many specious accusations and allegations about W. James Casper (repsac3) that brought you to this site, either directly--or far more likely, via your own due diligence (Dr. Douglas seldom actually provides links or citations, himself--please go back to the post, comment or tweet you read, and see whether Donald 1) paraphrased and characterized whatever it is he is claiming Mr Casper said or did, or 2) provided quotes, citations and links to Mr Casper’s actually saying or doing the thing Dr Douglas is alleging.
And then really think about why Donald Douglas (almost certainly) didn’t do the latter, and what that omission tells you about how seriously anyone should take his accusation(s)...
It'd be one thing if the primary source material of Dr. Douglas' complaint was no longer available to read and view in full context, verbatim, in whatever place he originally found it. But I know of no instance where that is the case. Donald Douglas is intentionally keeping his readers from the primary sources of his many complaints, and it's incumbent on every honest reader to take that fact into account, and to judge both the complaint and the complainer accordingly...
(Try it yourself. Decide on a page and link number--say the fifth link from the bottom on the ninth page of the Google search link above (pick your own page and link location, obviously)--and see for yourself whether Dr. Douglas backs his accusations against Mr Casper with anything concrete (quotes, links to or screencaps of exactly where he said or did whatever Donald is accusing him of), or whether it’s all paraphrase and characterization. While there may be exceptions, in the vast majority of cases there will be no quotes, no links, and no screencaps. There will just be Dr. Douglas telling you what he claims Mr Casper said and meant--as well as telling you exactly how you should feel about it--rather than showing you the supposed offense firsthand, and letting you judge it for yourself.)