The nonsense of the “Guilt by association” defense.
“Guilt by association” is a perfectly good phrase with a perfectly good meaning. But, it becomes very grating when it becomes a parroted line of defense for indefensible actions to which it isn’t even relevant. Of course, you can thank the mindless Obamatons and Yeswecans for that.
Guilt by association means establishing someone’s guilt in an action based on said association. Example:
“Obama is good friends with Bill Ayers, therefore, Obama blew up the Pentagon, just like Bill ayers.”
That is guilt by association. NO ONE IS MAKING THE ARGUMENT THAT OBAMA BLEW UP THE PENTAGON OR WOULD. The purpose of showing the close link between Obama and a domestic terrorist is not guilt by association, but rather guilt OF association. This is what guilt of association looks like:
“Obama chose to be good friends with a known terrorist.”
If you met someone who made bombs and killed innocent people would you:
A. Immediately pursue a close friendship with that person.
B. Avoid that person.
Obama is guilty of choosing A, and we must wonder what sort of decision making process or morals (or lack thereof) were involved in such a choice. Virtually every other person in this country would have picked “B”. Ask yourself, why did you pick B? What part of your decision process caused you to come to that choice? Whatever it is, Obama doesn’t have it.
Lastly, if you’d like to see some real guilt by association, check out the Obama claims that McCain would rule like Bush.