If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers.

  If Eich opposed Prop 8, then clearly he's a leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros.

If it were really about expressing disappointment, then the work would have been done the last time(s) this was hashed out.

Bringing it up at the time he's receiving the office carries a clear implication: support for prop 8 should be a mark against considering someone for high profile positions like this or should perhaps outright disqualify them.

For whatever it's worth, I'd somehow missed this news about Brandon Eich the first time around.

I'd think the "plural" on times would cover the answer to that question, on the level you're asking, anyway.

More to the point, yes, there are limits to what a financial contribution to prop 8 implies that thoughtful people will recognize. One of them might be bound to what an action taken 5 years ago would imply about positions today.

> For whatever it's worth, I'd somehow missed this news about Brandon Eich the first time around.

Clearly, you have been long and deeply engaged in the relevant topics.

If he were publicly in favor of warrantless wiretapping, he'd be catching even more crap about it from the tech community, yet the tech community is even further out of step from mainstream society on that issue.

Apparently it does matter to quite a few people here. If the community represents society as a whole, then it is a serious issue. If the community does not, then this is a tempest in a teapot.

The Koch Brothers have given money to support gay marriage. If you intend to slander people at least be truthful on what they support or don't support.

I posted two typical positions held by partisans on either end of the political spectrum. Neither did I represent as my opinion, and definitely not as fact.

Why did you latch on to one of these positions? Aren't you equally outraged about the "leftist degenerate and tool of George Soros" position as well?

Did it occur to you that perhaps if I was posting two diametrically opposing viewpoints, I was making a larger point and not simply spouting my personal beliefs?

Have the downvotes proven my point?

Making larger points doesn't give one license to misrepresent the view of people in such a contentious issue. I'm sure if someone attributed that belief to you as part of a larger point, you would feel a bit slighted.

> Have the downvotes proven my point?

I cannot down vote you, and I don't know what the down voters found about your post that lead them to take their action. Perhaps they will comment also.

Have not the Koch brothers been slandered in the media and in fact on the floor of the Senate? Have they not been made into the Great Conservative Boogeyman?

As for "homophobic": the first post in the thread contains the following phrase: "I guess 2 years is long enough for most people to have forgotten the brief storm about his homophobic political activities."

Do you mean to tell me that nobody would ever take such a position as I stated?

oh for the love of words, your example was: "If Eich supported Prop 8 in California, then clearly he's a homophobic tool of the Koch Brothers."

So, you made the association of "homophobic tool" to "Koch Brothers" indicating that they have such tools. Your example directly attributed beliefs to the Koch Brothers that they do not hold and actually oppose with money. This would be misrepresentation.

"Have not the Koch brothers been slandered in the media and in fact on the floor of the Senate? Have they not been made into the Great Conservative Boogeyman?"

Yes, they have been slandered on the Senate floor. That doesn't give you a free pass to commit the same slander. Adding to the pile is not a commendable activity.

"Do you mean to tell me that nobody would ever take such a position as I stated?"

It seems that plenty of people like to attribute to people things they do not actually believe. It is quite common in politics. It is still slander.

In the future I shall try to make the effort of being very direct and to the point so as to avoid any confusion. This, hopefully, will alleviate the concerns of the literal-minded, the humorless, and the partisan.