Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire

[Shayna]

Seriously, just who in the bloody hell do you think you are?

You prance around here with your holier-than-thou attitude as if you are so above the fray, when in fact you are one of the dirtiest motherfuckers that I've ever encountered.



Shayna, read the law itself, and not some "administration official" with a self-serving lie. I know it's hard to read yourself away from the echo chamber of publications that reinforce your view, but it's possible. I read the SDMB in large part because so many people here don't share my viewpoint, and I'm willing to hazard a guess that you don't do something similar.

.

Hey, SHIT-FOR-BRAINS, I SPELLED THE SOURCE OUT RIGHT THERE FOR YOUR TINY LITTLE PEA-NEURON TO SEE. Since the hell when did CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST MARK HALPERIN at The Page become a fucking "echo chamber that reinforces my view," you cumwad?

As for your guess-hazarding, I guess that's proof enough right there how fucking wrong you are about me and my reading habits.

Besides the fact, the person you should have been attacking was the fucking source of the information if they in fact got it wrong. Excuse the fuck out of me for relying upon one of YOUR GUYS for truth and accuracy. You can bet your sweet ass I won't be making that mistake again!

Jesus you make me sick.

Asshole.

[Covered_In_Bees!]

Bricker being Pitted? Been three months already?

[Shayna]

Bricker being Pitted? Been three months already? It's a first for me and I couldn't reply to him the way I wanted to in the GODDAMN GD THREAD THAT THE ASSHOLE GD MODERATORS CONSTANTLY LET PEOPLE PERSONALLY ATTACK ME IN.

[Leaper]

Hrm. Have you reported those posts? They won't do anything about them?

[Euphonious Polemic]

As long as friend Bricker did not break any laws, then what he did it perfectly fine. Did he break any laws? Did he violate any particular part of the constitution? Can you cite case law for his wrongdoing? Hmmmph. I thought not.

If you cannot describe exactly what laws Bricker broke, then he is absolutely right and correct in everything he does.

</sarcasm>

[elucidator]

Ah, you kids! You two should stab and make up.

[Nzinga, Seated]

It's a first for me and I couldn't reply to him the way I wanted to in the GODDAMN GD THREAD THAT THE ASSHOLE GD MODERATORS CONSTANTLY LET PEOPLE PERSONALLY ATTACK ME IN.

Easy there, lil' lady. Allow me to cuss out the Mods for you. I think I know how to do it without getting in trouble. Ahem. Let's just say the modding in that thread is twattily executed. In a twatty fashion. As if modded by twats.

* Didn't read the GD thread. Off to read it now.

**Nzinga, you know better than to imply someone is a twat or cunt or whatever, don't do that again.

***Shayna forgot to link the thread.

[elucidator]

Well, you say some guy is a huge dick, you're not being as offensive as saying he's a little prick. The anatomical definitions may be the same, but the nuances are different. Which is why we have the Luminous Ones. Nuances.

[Shayna]

Hrm. Have you reported those posts? They won't do anything about them? Every time.

Every time I have to report them because unless I do they go unmoderated.

And every time the offending party is told rather gently, "Please be nice."

Fuckers.



Easy there, lil' lady. Allow me to cuss out the Mods for you. I think I know how to do it without getting in trouble. Ahem. Let's just say the modding in that thread is twattily executed. In a twatty fashion. As if modded by twats.

* Didn't read the GD thread. Off to read it now.

**Nzinga, you know better than to imply someone is a twat or cunt or whatever, don't do that again.

***Shayna forgot to link the thread.

I do quite like your version. Thank you.

***Pssst. The little blue arrow next to Bricker's name in the offending quote in the OP takes you there. :)

[furt]

CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST MARK HALPERIN :dubious: Cite for Mark Halperin as a conservative? I've always understood him as a Clintonian center-left guy.

[The Tooth]

After reading how the guy is all for letting poor people die from lack of access to healthcare if doing something about it means less money for him, then defending such by blaming it on his god, not to mention his making excuses about how he isn't obliged to support it as per his religion's instructions because of Obama (go figure), despite claiming in the same thread that his is an "all or nothing" religion, I figure calling Bricker a jackass extraordinaire is being kind.

[Shayna]

:dubious: Cite for Mark Halperin as a conservative? I've always understood him as a Clintonian center-left guy. Oh Fa-pucking-lease.

[Nzinga, Seated]

...***Pssst. The little blue arrow next to Bricker's name in the offending quote in the OP takes you there. :)

Oh! I knew that. I forgot. Thanks. Found the thread in the meantime.

[Euphonious Polemic]

:dubious: Cite for Mark Halperin as a conservative? I've always understood him as a Clintonian center-left guy.

Well, he was suspended (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html) for calling Obama a "dick" so I don't think he's a big fan of the president.

In 2008, he "decried the Disgusting’ Pro-Obama Media Bias in Election Coverage (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/halperin-decrie/)"

Does that sound "center-left" to you? He does not work for Fox News, so I guess in some people's books that alone makes him a de facto raving pinko communist.

[John Mace]

Calm down.

The link your OP goes to an article by Jill Klausen in which she ridicules Republicans. That's who Bricker was referring to. The link in your OP. He suggested you read the law itself, so I don't see how a cite from and article by Halperin counts as having read the law. I can't see anything in his resume that speaks to him being a conservative columnist, but that's really besides the point.

Are you perhaps confusing him with Mark Helprin?

[waterj2]

Eschaton did a pretty good job of mocking Halperin (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/04/wanker-of-decade-runner-up-4.html) as one of their Wankers of the Decade.

Also Alex Pareene has named him the #2 media hack in 2010 (http://www.salon.com/2010/11/24/hack_list_2/), and #1 in 2011 (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/1_mark_halperin/).

From reading those, and the fact that he's on Morning Joe, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call him conservative, even if he's probably trying to keep himself in the Beltway consensus center. Also, he seems to be wrong about everything, much like Republicans are.

[Lasciel]

Easy there, lil' lady. Allow me to cuss out the Mods for you. I think I know how to do it without getting in trouble. Ahem. Let's just say the modding in that thread is twattily executed. In a twatty fashion. As if modded by twats.

* Didn't read the GD thread. Off to read it now.

**Nzinga, you know better than to imply someone is a twat or cunt or whatever, don't do that again.

(snip)

You totally just won my vote for the Doper of the year award. Thank you for that.

[guizot]

As long as friend Bricker did not break any laws, then what he did it perfectly fine. Did he break any laws? Did he violate any particular part of the constitution? Can you cite case law for his wrongdoing? Hmmmph. I thought not.

If you cannot describe exactly what laws Bricker broke, then he is absolutely right and correct in everything he does.But didn't you know that only lawyers can read and comprehend all those things? They have magical powers, conferred on them by spending three mystical years in a wondrous place, not unlike Hogwarts.

[Miller]

It's a first for me and I couldn't reply to him the way I wanted to in the GODDAMN GD THREAD THAT THE ASSHOLE GD MODERATORS CONSTANTLY LET PEOPLE PERSONALLY ATTACK ME IN.


Shayna, if you have complaints about the moderation of the board, those complaints should go in ATMB. If you just want to cuss at moderators, well, there isn't really a forum here where you can do that, but I understand there are more than a few other forums that exist more or less explicitly for that purpose. In the meantime, I have to ask you to put a hold on your vituperation of the moderation staff here.

No warning issued.

[Miller]

You prance around here with your holier-than-thou attitude as if you are so above the fray, when in fact you are one of the dirtiest motherfuckers that I've ever encountered.


Also, calling other posters "motherfuckers" is against the Pit's language restrictions. Please avoid this language in the future.

Still no warning issued.

[Lobohan]

vituperation

That word a day calendar is doing it's job. (http://i.imgur.com/qWc9Y.jpg) :D

[Mosier]

Also, calling other posters "motherfuckers" is against the Pit's language restrictions. Please avoid this language in the future.

Still no warning issued.


Stupid rule.

[John DiFool]

Bricker being Pitted? Been three months already?

20 times now in 10 years (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=8021304), so 6 month average.

[Crazyhorse]

20 times now in 10 years (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?searchid=8021304), so 6 month average.

Yeah but the Bush years were understandably hard on Bricker in the Pit. Since November 2008 there have only been a total of four.

[Bricker]

Neither Mark Halperin (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713443/posts) nor Jill Klausen (http://www.winningwordsproject.com/jillwklausen) are conservative columnists, and no agenda-driven columnist's summary of the law is more accurate than the actual words of the actual law.

[Shayna]

Calm down.

The link your OP goes to an article by Jill Klausen in which she ridicules Republicans. That's who Bricker was referring to. The link in your OP. He suggested you read the law itself, so I don't see how a cite from and article by Halperin counts as having read the law. I can't see anything in his resume that speaks to him being a conservative columnist, but that's really besides the point.

Are you perhaps confusing him with Mark Helprin? And you're just as big an idiot as he is. The link Bricker was referring to was NOT the link in the OP, it was a link in a subsequent post wherein I quoted Mark Halperin BY NAME.

And he did way more than simply suggest I read the law, he attacked me personally as someone who lives in a fucking cave without bothering to acknowledge that the SOURCE I quoted was a CONSERVATIVE.

As for the moderator comments here, all I can say is I don't care.

[Bricker]

Huh. The above post was intended for the GD thread, and the impolite version in the GD thread was intended for here.

Sorry about that.

[Bricker]

And you're just as big an idiot as he is. The link Bricker was referring to was NOT the link in the OP, it was a link in a subsequent post wherein I quoted Mark Halperin BY NAME.

And he did way more than simply suggest I read the law, he attacked me personally as someone who lives in a fucking cave without bothering to acknowledge that the SOURCE I quoted was a CONSERVATIVE.

As for the moderator comments here, all I can say is I don't care.

Mark Halperin is not a conservative, Shayna.

[Shayna]

Neither Mark Halperin (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713443/posts) nor Jill Klausen (http://www.winningwordsproject.com/jillwklausen) are conservative columnists, and no agenda-driven columnist's summary of the law is more accurate than the actual words of the actual law.
And you aren't any person of ANY note. You're an ASSHOLE who had no respect for anyone except your holier-than-thou self. Go cram a jalepeno pepper up your eurethra.

[John Mace]

So, getting to the matter of this Pit thread.

Bricker was certainly not diplomatic in his first response, but it's hardly insulting. Especially since the OP consisted of nothing more than a link + quote, a cheap shot, well poisoning remark about FoxNews, and little else.

The OP seems to suffer from victim-itise, in that so many people are "insulting" her, but the mean ol' mods won't do anything about it. And what's with the screeching (all that capitalized shit)? Did someone get between the Momma Grizzly of the left and her cub, affectionately known as PeaPact?

It should be noted, thought, that further on in the GD thread, Bricker clearly is breaking the rules when he calls the OP a liar. Not kosher.

[Lobohan]

Neither Mark Halperin (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713443/posts) nor Jill Klausen (http://www.winningwordsproject.com/jillwklausen) are conservative columnists, and no agenda-driven columnist's summary of the law is more accurate than the actual words of the actual law.I personally would call Halprin as centrist. He's had his problems with Obama. Notably calling him a dick and decrying the insane amount of what he called media bias for him during the 2008 campaign. He's not conservative in the sense that he's a liar like Hannity, but he'd probably be a moderate Republican back when you guys weren't following the insane wing of your party.

In any case, none of this means you aren't a complete pustule.

As I understand it, this whole tangent is based on whether a company that pays for medical passes along the rebate to the worker, right? Didn't we find that out? So why are you so upset, is it because you know that Obamacare isn't actually evil incarnate, so you need to find something to bitch about?

[Shayna]

Mark Halperin is not a conservative, Shayna.
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK you arrogant piece of shit. He's no goddamn LIBERAL, that's for DAMN sure, and you fucking well KNOW that, which makes your allegation that much more despicable. You slimy piece of scum.

[Bricker]

So, getting to the matter of this Pit thread.

Bricker was certainly not diplomatic in his first response, but it's hardly insulting. Especially since the OP consisted of nothing more than a link + quote, a cheap shot, well poisoning remark about FoxNews, and little else.

The OP seems to suffer from victim-itise, in that so many people are "insulting" her, but the mean ol' mods won't do anything about it. And what's with the screeching (all that capitalized shit)? Did someone get between the Momma Grizzly of the left and her cub, affectionately known as PeaPact?

It should be noted, thought, that further on in the GD thread, Bricker clearly is breaking the rules when he calls the OP a liar. Not kosher.

Yup. I'm afraid I mixed up which forum I was in. The calm response above was intended for the GD thread. The response in the GD thread was to find a home here.

[Bricker]

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK you arrogant piece of shit. He's no goddamn LIBERAL, that's for DAMN sure, and you fucking well KNOW that, which makes your allegation that much more despicable. You slimy piece of scum.

If he's not a conservative, and you said he was a conservative, how does that make my allegation more despicable?

My point was that you draw your information from echo chambers which reinforce,rather than challenge, your views. If Halperin is not a conservative,that would seem to support my point, wouldn't it?

[John Mace]

And you're just as big an idiot as he is. The link Bricker was referring to was NOT the link in the OP, it was a link in a subsequent post wherein I quoted Mark Halperin BY NAME.

No, it wasn't.

[Shayna]

In any case, none of this means you aren't a complete pustule. That's an understatement.

As I understand it, this whole tangent is based on whether a company that pays for medical passes along the rebate to the worker, right? Didn't we find that out? So why are you so upset, is it because you know that Obamacare isn't actually evil incarnate, so you need to find something to bitch about? Actually, this tangent is based on whether or not Bricker decides he personally likes my source, and if he decides he doesn't, well I must live in a fucking ... what did he call it ... oh yes, "the echo chamber of publications that reinforce [my] view."

He gets off on making himself feel superior because, well he deigns to come to the ... <gasp!> Librul Straight Dope! OMG bow down, good man, bow down before him.

If I can't call him a motherfucker can I call him a bloody puss pocket in a boil on the ass of Rush Limbaugh? Does that pass muster in the Pit these days?

[Shayna]

No, it wasn't. Yes, it FUCKING WAS you dumbass. Can you not even follow a goddamn thread? Must I spell it the fuck OUT for you?

Fine. I'll be back.

Jesus fucking christ.

[Bricker]

I personally would call Halprin as centrist. He's had his problems with Obama. Notably calling him a dick and decrying the insane amount of what he called media bias for him during the 2008 campaign. He's not conservative in the sense that he's a liar like Hannity, but he'd probably be a moderate Republican back when you guys weren't following the insane wing of your party.

In any case, none of this means you aren't a complete pustule.

As I understand it, this whole tangent is based on whether a company that pays for medical passes along the rebate to the worker, right? Didn't we find that out? So why are you so upset, is it because you know that Obamacare isn't actually evil incarnate, so you need to find something to bitch about?

If I had to find an upset person by reading the posts in this thread, I really would not have chosen my name as the prime candidate.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

My thinking: whether Halperin is a conservative is irrelevant. Whether Shayna is engaged in echo-chamber visiting is irrelevant. Bother of these points only enter the discussion as ad hominems and should be recognized as such and then dropped. (The bleeding pustule stuff is also ad hominem, of course, but this is the Pit--I'm talking about what should be dropped in GD).

If the OP's article misrepresents the law, then Bricker, it'd behoove you to show how and in what way. Saying, "read the law" is not productive. Saying, "Look at page 336 of the law, in which points x, y, and z are laid out," is much more productive.

[Measure for Measure]

And you aren't any person of ANY note. You're an ASSHOLE who had no respect for anyone except your holier-than-thou self. Go cram a jalepeno pepper up your eurethra. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK you arrogant piece of shit. He's no goddamn LIBERAL, that's for DAMN sure, and you fucking well KNOW that, which makes your allegation that much more despicable. You slimy piece of scum. Shayna appears to be over-reacting.


Huh. The above post was intended for the GD thread, and the impolite version in the GD thread was intended for here.

Sorry about that. Bummer.

[Shayna]

Here's the original post in its entirety. Note that there is not one word in there about whether or not an employer must reimburse their employees for refunds they receive from the insurance companies. Read carefully now. It's not there, I promise you. You know how I know this? I WROTE IT.



"We aren't exactly out of "the fog of controversy" that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to be out of before we could see the benefits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but we're about to see just how right she was. ... to the tune of $1.3 billion that will go back into healthcare consumers' pockets because of the 80/20 rule written into the law. That's $1.3 billion that can be used to save people's homes. $1.3 billion that can help put food on empty tables. $1.3 billion that can put gas in people's cars so they can get to job interviews, that can buy clothes for kids who've outgrown them, that can purchase much-needed school supplies, that can be set aside for retirement.

That's $1.3 billion that will be going back into our economy, helping lift us further out of the recession we've barely been scraping our way out of—because Republicans in Congress blocked every effort by President Obama to put people back to work. It's $1.3 billion that was supposed to be used on patient health care ... and wasn't!"

http://www.winningwordsproject.com/the_patient_protection_act_is_about_to_put_1_3_billion_back_in_consumers_pockets

What are the chances we'll hear about this on Fox News? LOL Just kidding. Seriously, though, can we not at least all agree that this is a good thing?

Discuss. And then we get Mr. Hyde in post #5 telling us that ... pay attention to the bolded bit ...



Unless you have individual insurance you don't get a dime. If you are under an employers plan your employer gets the money back, not you personally. That's why the $1.3bn is going back to only around 16m Americans, if you aren't a corporation or a small business owner or someone with an individual plan, you are not getting a rebate. But for those that do get rebates--congratulations, you made an interest free loan to the multibillion dollar insurance company that you buy health insurance from! You can also expect that as the years go on health insurance companies will get better and better at making sure fewer and fewer dollars fall under this requirement.

Now that I think about it, a lot of the people getting rebates are probably Republicans, since this money will disproportionately be going to people like small business owners, or corporations (which aren't human people at all.)

To which I replied in post #11 ... AKA, NOT THE FUCKING OP ...



Bzzzzt. The law requires businesses to return it to the employees.

The rebates will average around $127 for the over 3 million individuals who receive them directly. Small employers covering almost 5 million people will receive around $377 million (an average break of $76), while larger employers covering about 7.5 million people will get approximately $541 million (an average of $72). According to administration officials, employers are obligated to pass those savings onto their employees.

Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2012/05/11/h...#ixzz1ucfNp5Nr ...

And THAT is the post to which Brickass was referring when he took to insulting my reading habits IN GREAT DEBATES in his post that reads:



Shayna, read the law itself, and not some "administration official" with a self-serving lie. I know it's hard to read yourself away from the echo chamber of publications that reinforce your view, but it's possible. I read the SDMB in large part because so many people here don't share my viewpoint, and I'm willing to hazard a guess that you don't do something similar.

[John Mace]

Here's the original post in its entirety. Note that there is not one word in there about whether or not an employer must reimburse their employees for refunds they receive from the insurance companies. Read carefully now. It's not there, I promise you. You know how I know this? I WROTE IT.

And then we get Mr. Hyde in post #5 telling us that ... pay attention to the bolded bit ...



To which I replied in post #11 ... AKA, NOT THE FUCKING OP ...

And THAT is the post to which Brickass was referring when he took to insulting my reading habits IN GREAT DEBATES in his post that reads:
OK, my bad. Now, can you calm down?

[Kimstu]

OK, my bad. Now, can you calm down?

Calm down? In the Pit? Is that even legal?

[John Mace]

Calm down? In the Pit? Is that even legal?
Ask Bricker.

[Shayna]

OK, my bad. Now, can you calm down? Thank you, and no, not when it comes to him. I loathe him. In case you hadn't noticed, this is personal.



Calm down? In the Pit? Is that even legal? LOL

Ask Bricker. Not if my life depended on it.

[John Mace]

Thank you, and no, not when it comes to him. I loathe him. In case you hadn't noticed, this is personal.

LOL Not if my life depended on it.

Don't let him get to you like that. It's just a message board.

[Nzinga, Seated]

You totally just won my vote for the Doper of the year award. Thank you for that.

Well, it was RaftPeople who taught me to cover (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15054796&postcount=91)my ass.

Don't let him get to you like that. It's just a message board.

Eh. I know we all are supposed to be above it all and "it's only pixels on a screen" but to be honest, it's refreshing to see some fucking passion sometimes. For anything. And the fact that ultimately, it really is pixels on a screen, reassures me that Shayna isn't exactly cutting herself over it. Just showing some good ol' fashioned internet passion. Nothin' wrong with that.

[Bricker]

My thinking: whether Halperin is a conservative is irrelevant. Whether Shayna is engaged in echo-chamber visiting is irrelevant. Bother of these points only enter the discussion as ad hominems and should be recognized as such and then dropped. (The bleeding pustule stuff is also ad hominem, of course, but this is the Pit--I'm talking about what should be dropped in GD).

If the OP's article misrepresents the law, then Bricker, it'd behoove you to show how and in what way. Saying, "read the law" is not productive. Saying, "Look at page 336 of the law, in which points x, y, and z are laid out," is much more productive.

Sure. 45 CFR § 158.242(b), relating to recipients of rebates, provides as follows (for clarity, the "policyholder" is the company and a "subscriber" is the individual person covered by the policy.


Large group and small group markets. Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section, an issuer must meet its obligation to provide any rebate to persons covered under a group health plan by providing it to the policyholder.

(1) In the case of a policyholder that is a non-Federal governmental group health plan, the policyholder must use the amount of the rebate that is proportionate to the total amount of premium paid by all subscribers under the policy, for the benefit of subscribers in one of the following ways, at the option of the policyholder:.

It goes on to lay out possible rebate options. A company can keep the money, apply it to next year's premiums, and reduce its own contribution to employee health care, for example, without violating the law:



(iv) The reduction in future premium or the cash refund provided under paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section may, at the option of the policyholder, be: Divided evenly among such subscribers; divided based on each subscriber's actual contributions to premium; or apportioned in a manner that reasonably reflects each subscriber's contributions to premium.

[Bricker]

Thank you, and no, not when it comes to him. I loathe him. In case you hadn't noticed, this is personal.

.

Gee, Shayna, what did I ever do to you?

[MsWhatsit]

Yes, it FUCKING WAS you dumbass. Can you not even follow a goddamn thread? Must I spell it the fuck OUT for you?

Fine. I'll be back.

Jesus fucking christ.

Good beat. I could dance to this.



Sure. 45 CFR § 158.242(b), relating to recipients of rebates, provides as follows (for clarity, the "policyholder" is the company and a "subscriber" is the individual person covered by the policy.

Boo.

[John Mace]

Sure. 45 CFR § 158.242(b), relating to recipients of rebates, provides as follows (for clarity, the "policyholder" is the company and a "subscriber" is the individual person covered by the policy.




It goes on to lay out possible rebate options. A company can keep the money, apply it to next year's premiums, and reduce its own contribution to employee health care, for example, without violating the law:

Where does it say that the company can "keep the money"?

[Bricker]

Where does it say that the company can "keep the money"?

When it allows the company to apply it to next year's premium.

[John Mace]

When it allows the company to apply it to next year's premium.
So, the can keep it for one year before it needs to be dispersed to "the subscribers". Is that right?

[John Mace]

Well, it was RaftPeople who taught me to cover (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15054796&postcount=91)my ass.



Eh. I know we all are supposed to be above it all and "it's only pixels on a screen" but to be honest, it's refreshing to see some fucking passion sometimes. For anything. And the fact that ultimately, it really is pixels on a screen, reassures me that Shayna isn't exactly cutting herself over it. Just showing some good ol' fashioned internet passion. Nothin' wrong with that.
You see passion, I see anger.

[Measure for Measure]

You see passion, I see anger. You see anger, I see unhinged.

[magellan01]

That's an understatement. Actually, this tangent is based on whether or not Bricker decides he personally likes my source, and if he decides he doesn't, well I must live in a fucking ... what did he call it ... oh yes, "the echo chamber of publications that reinforce [my] view."

Well, it does appear that you do live in an echo chamber, a giant cunch shell where all you can hear is the roar of a sea of leftists and liberals. Poke your head out once in a while. Might do you good.

[Terr]

Thank you, and no, not when it comes to him. I loathe him. In case you hadn't noticed, this is personal. Bricker, you must be doing something right.

[Bricker]

So, the can keep it for one year before it needs to be dispersed to "the subscribers". Is that right?

Yes... although even then, there is no requirement to apply it to each subscriber in the amount that they, personally, overpaid. The company can chose to divide the total refund amongst all their subscribers, for example, rather than refund to each person the overage their subscription produced. And more to the point, the company can reduce the percentage it pays.

In other words, if the company covered 50% of your health care premium last year, and gets a refund of $150,000, it can keep that money and apply it to next year's premiums, and decrease their contribution to 35% in that next year as well. The employee doesn't see a loss in his paycheck, but the company gets the benefit, not the employee. It's a crappy little loophole.

[magellan01]

Bricker, you must be doing something right.

+ ten billion. Her condemnation is like a badge of honor. She's friggin nuts. That can happen when you live in an echo chamber.

[Shayna]

Well, it was RaftPeople who taught me to cover (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15054796&postcount=91)my ass.



Eh. I know we all are supposed to be above it all and "it's only pixels on a screen" but to be honest, it's refreshing to see some fucking passion sometimes. For anything. And the fact that ultimately, it really is pixels on a screen, reassures me that Shayna isn't exactly cutting herself over it. Just showing some good ol' fashioned internet passion. Nothin' wrong with that. I'm enjoying a pizza, a lovely glass of zinfandel and laughing my ass off at Blazing Saddles.

It's Twue! It's Twue! :D

You see passion, I see anger. Yeah, so what?

So, the can keep it for one year before it needs to be dispersed to "the subscribers". Is that right? Of course that's right. But in typical Bricker fashion he's going to twist it and manipulate it and pretend that it's just semantics because not every penny is divvied up exactly evenly. The employees do get it back (which was the only claim that was made), but because they don't get it back in S&H Green Stamps or something, it doesn't really count and he gets to act like he's just so fucking superior.

He's wrong. But he doesn't care if he can stick one of these § in his reply. That makes him like, super duper more better at reading than libruls.

I guaranfuckingtee you that if I had started a thread titled, "Government overcharges taxpayers and is forced to return $1.3 Billion to citizens," we'd never hear the end of how evil "The Government" is and how dare they overcharge people, and that's ONE POINT THREE BILLION WITH A B THAT THEY STOLE FROM PATRIOTIC AMERICANS OBAMA IS THE SUXOR!

But when it's a corporation ripping off their customers and the government making them do the right thing, well ... LOOK! OVER THERE! AN ECHO CHAMBER!

[septimus]

I support this pitting.

There are two modes by which we might view any issue:
(1) A way which combines morality, common-sense and reason to reach a correct answer, the "whole truth."
(2) A hyper-legalistic way which might work against a judge or jury, especially if a witness is particularly stupid.


If Bricker consistently adopted mode (2), he would have a function. We could turn to him when we wanted a legalistic view, e.g. if a health or environment advocate were preparing a court case.

The problem is that Bricker cheerfully bounces between modes 1 and 2, depending on whichever suits his obnoxious right-wing views in the issue at hand. The one constant is his holier-than-thou attitude, condemning mode 2 when he's temporarily in mode 1, and vice versa.

A sad thing is that one often detects a glimmer of rationality and candor in his posts. For example, he is not wrong when he blathers "How about if it costs 17 trillion dollars to save a citizen's life. ... should he still get free care? Hunh? Hunh? Hunh?" But the obnoxious holier-than-thou attitude is constant, making it hard to like him even when he's right. I'd put him on ignore but, frankly, he's become one of the more amusing animals in the zoo for me.

OK, my bad. Now, can you calm down?

This could have been written by the Brick. When he's wrong ... it's still the other guy's fault. :dubious:

You see passion, I see anger.

The right wing has many ilks. Mace is of a different faction than the Brick, and somewhat more intelligent; but the underlying ethos is still the same. Our side? Passion. Your side? Anger.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Congrats Bricker. You have Terr and magellan01 on board.

Stop and think about that for a moment. Savor it. Roll it around in your thoughts for a while.

[Oldeb]

+ ten billion. Her condemnation is like a badge of honor. She's friggin nuts. That can happen when you live in an echo chamber.
I'd hold on to this endorsement, Bricker. He doesn't just hand this kind of accolade out. You and Jerry Sandusky are in rare company.

[elucidator]

OK, just to clarify this whole motherfucking question. If I say I'm masturbating like a motherfuck, thats a simile, right? Its not in the accusative tense, saying that I am a motherfucker, only like a motherfucker. So unless I report myself, it doesn't go on my permanent record?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Gee, Shayna, what did I ever do to you?

Outclassed her intellectually?

[Miller]

I'd hold on to this endorsement, Bricker. He doesn't just hand this kind of accolade out. You and Jerry Sandusky are in rare company.

I think you have him confused with Starving Artist.

[Covered_In_Bees!]

The right wing has many ilks.

"No, there is only one." -Father Merrin

[MsWhatsit]

I think you have him confused with Starving Artist.

I'm pretty sure that's not better.

[elucidator]

"No, there is only one." -Father Merrin

That would be so far fucking out! Be the first internet board possessed by a demon! Unless that's what happened to 4chan.....

[MeanOldLady]

As long as friend Bricker did not break any laws, then what he did it perfectly fine. Did he break any laws? Did he violate any particular part of the constitution? Can you cite case law for his wrongdoing? Hmmmph. I thought not.

If you cannot describe exactly what laws Bricker broke, then he is absolutely right and correct in everything he does.

</sarcasm>Damn you! You killed it with the "</sarcasm>" tag. I was chuckling inwardly at your spot-on impersonation of Bricks. I swear, you could burn down an orphanage, and he would dredge up some obscure case law from 1918 that deemed in in some cases it may be technically legal to do so, as if that were some defense against "Dude, don't burn down orphanages." Dude is an asshole who can't see the forest for the mothergoddamn trees.

That word a day calendar is doing it's job. (http://i.imgur.com/qWc9Y.jpg) :DBut is the grammar calender doing its job? Booyah! Sorry, had to be done. Please love me.


Calm down? In the Pit? Is that even legal?Ask Bricker.A+

So Shayna, I think you're a nice lady and all, but can you please let up on the rampant bolding and capitalization? You probably don't care at all about making my day, but if you did, I'm just saying that would be how to go about it.

[prodicus]

The right wing has many ilks. Mace is of a different faction than the Brick, and somewhat more intelligent; but the underlying ethos is still the same. Our side? Passion. Your side? Anger.

Anyone who thinks JM is right wing is either too far left or not paying attention.

[voltaire]

That word a day calendar is doing it's job. (http://i.imgur.com/qWc9Y.jpg) :D
But is the grammar calender doing its job? Booyah! Sorry, had to be done. Please love me.
Looks like you need to consult your spelling calendar. Sorry, had to be done. ;)

[MeanOldLady]

Fuck! You got me.

[septimus]

Anyone who thinks JM is right wing is either too far left or not paying attention.

Political thought is not one-dimensional. Mace has many sensible views, but IIRC seems to accept some of the zanier tenets of extreme libertarianism.

[elucidator]

John is totally non-partisan. He'd be the first to tell you so. Also, the last. And a couple times in between, in case you missed it.

[Hal Briston]

...well poisoning remark about FoxNews...Now this tidbit seriously cracked my shit up.

[saoirse]

I'm not seeing this at all. I mean, bricker should have posted the relevant part of the law in the first place, but if you want an argument over what the law says, you should start with what the law says. Also, "someone who often agrees with you on certain issues says it's true, therefore it you must acknowledge it is true" is a pretty bad argument. If we've established that Mark Halperin is a hack, why the hell would anything he says be given credence?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Yes... although even then, there is no requirement to apply it to each subscriber in the amount that they, personally, overpaid. The company can chose to divide the total refund amongst all their subscribers, for example, rather than refund to each person the overage their subscription produced. And more to the point, the company can reduce the percentage it pays.

In other words, if the company covered 50% of your health care premium last year, and gets a refund of $150,000, it can keep that money and apply it to next year's premiums, and decrease their contribution to 35% in that next year as well. The employee doesn't see a loss in his paycheck, but the company gets the benefit, not the employee. It's a crappy little loophole.So this is what should have gone in GD, IMO, rather than the psychoanalysis of Shayna's echo-chamber malfunction.

Given this post (and the ones leading up to it), it seems to me that you're making a fair criticism of the law, and a fair rebuttal to Shayna's GD OP. Shayna, what say you?

[What the .... ?!?!]

Eschaton did a pretty good job of mocking Halperin (http://www.eschatonblog.com/2012/04/wanker-of-decade-runner-up-4.html) as one of their Wankers of the Decade.

Also Alex Pareene has named him the #2 media hack in 2010 (http://www.salon.com/2010/11/24/hack_list_2/), and #1 in 2011 (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/1_mark_halperin/).

From reading those, and the fact that he's on Morning Joe, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call him conservative, even if he's probably trying to keep himself in the Beltway consensus center. Also, he seems to be wrong about everything, much like Republicans are.

Where were you when I asked for a similar analysis on the faces of PBS? Perhaps you didn't get a chance to see it before the debate/opinions were stifled.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Shayna, if you have complaints about the moderation of the board, those complaints should go in ATMB. If you just want to cuss at moderators, well, there isn't really a forum here where you can do that, but I understand there are more than a few other forums that exist more or less explicitly for that purpose. In the meantime, I have to ask you to put a hold on your vituperation of the moderation staff here.

No warning issued.


Where it can be totally ignored if they feel like it. However, I have a feeling that yours would be addressed..

[What the .... ?!?!]

So, getting to the matter of this Pit thread.

Bricker was certainly not diplomatic in his first response, but it's hardly insulting. Especially since the OP consisted of nothing more than a link + quote, a cheap shot, well poisoning remark about FoxNews, and little else.



How in the world did it stay in GD then ......(pssst, never mind, I know):D

[Hamlet]

My God you sound like a whiny little bitch What the...? Let it go.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Calm down? In the Pit? Is that even legal?

Never tell a woman to calm down.

[gamerunknown]

Just showing some good ol' fashioned internet passion.

Reminded of this (http://citizensforsafetechnology.org/images/content/How%20Things%20Have%20Changed.jpg).

[Loach]

Thank you all for reminding me why I stay out of GD.

[John Mace]

John is totally non-partisan. He'd be the first to tell you so. Also, the last. And a couple times in between, in case you missed it.

No, I don't think I ever say that. You do. Perhaps you are confusing yourself with me?

As for the anger/passion thingy, when soneone says they loathe someone, that's usually a sign of anger, not passion. N'est pas?

[John Mace]

Anyone who thinks JM is right wing is either too far left or not paying attention.

False dichotomy. :) I mean, isn't that idea what more or less got this who brouhaha going in the first place?

[Batfish]

Thank you all for reminding me why I stay out of GD.

Because all the fun stuff winds up here anyway?

[Lobohan]

But is the grammar calender doing its job? Booyah! Sorry, had to be done. Please love me.It's its!

God damn it... I never get that wrong. :(

Well, I guess I do sometimes.

[Lobohan]

False dichotomy. :) I mean, isn't that idea what more or less got this who brouhaha going in the first place?Oh you're certainly on the right. You just aren't a complete dipshit like Shodan.

You are a bit of a knee-jerk they both do it, neener guy, so you do have some overlap with Bricker.

You're often wrong, but you're rarely hilariously wrong. And that's the kind of Republican I miss. Just wrong. Not actively acting like a super-villain.

[Loach]

Because all the fun stuff winds up here anyway?

Because its all a meaningless circle jerk.

Hmmm maybe I'm missing out on something.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

I support this pitting.

There are two modes by which we might view any issue:
(1) A way which combines morality, common-sense and reason to reach a correct answer, the "whole truth."
(2) A hyper-legalistic way which might work against a judge or jury, especially if a witness is particularly stupid.


How on earth do you think mode of reasoning (1) would have any relevance to determining the operation of a precisely worded statute and regulation that serve as a component to highly-detailed regulatory scheme?

Consider the role of UCC filings for secured lending: The requirements for perfecting a security interest are explicitly set forth and strictly construed. A person who files a technically defective UCC-1 cannot rely on "morality, common sense, and reason" to cure the defect; instead they lose.

You may have preferred that a different PPACA had passed than the one that in fact did. This is fine, but it does not entitle you to say that PPACA will do what you wish it would have done rather than what it will do.

[Cicero]

Shayna, if you have complaints about the moderation of the board, those complaints should go in ATMB. If you just want to cuss at moderators, well, there isn't really a forum here where you can do that, but I understand there are more than a few other forums that exist more or less explicitly for that purpose. In the meantime, I have to ask you to put a hold on your vituperation of the moderation staff here.

No warning issued.


Well that's it. I have no idea what to do with my vituperation now.

[saoirse]

Well that's it. I have no idea what to do with my vituperation now.

Donate it. The Salvation Army probably has a drop off bin near you. You probably don't have a VVA, and God knows they have plenty of vituperation, anyway. In any case, don't let it go to waste!

[Cicero]

Nah- the Sallys bin is surrounded by CRT televisions. I tried to donate my old one and they said they only took flat screens. So I have this perfectly good large television which I can't give away!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Nah- the Sallys bin is surrounded by CRT televisions. I tried to donate my old one and they said they only took flat screens. So I have this perfectly good large television which I can't give away!

I'll take it if you pay for shipping (I collect stamps)

[Cicero]

Stamps? I can't even lift it! Seriously, I will have to be kind to my neighbour (he is a rather large Maori) to helpme get it into the back of the car so I can dump the damn thing. What a waste.

Has anything even fallen from grace so quickly as CRT televisions?

[Koxinga]

I endorse this pitting. I'm tired of Bricker throwing all that shit on my lawn every week and calling my number and then hanging up. I KNOW IT WAS YOU, YOU FUCKER!!!!! I BET IT WAS YOU THAT KEYED MY CAR THAT ONE TIME TOO!!!!!

[Miller]

Has anything even fallen from grace so quickly as CRT televisions?

8 tracks?

[Euphonious Polemic]

I do want to thank Bricker for one thing:

There is now precedent for "Oh gee, I mixed up the threads, so that's why I called you a puss-sucking asshole in GD. Sorry, my bad, no warning, right?"

I'm gonna save that one up for when I really need it.

[Cicero]

8 tracks?

8 tracks (sadly I remember them) were not as common as CRT TV's and they certainly didn't have the longevity.

I think you would probably gat a few dollars for an 8 track now. Not a CRT TV. :mad:

[Farmer Jane]

So are you mad at Bricker because Bricker isn't your cuppa political tea or because of how he talks to you?

Bricker is abrasive, but he's useful. He's often the minority opinion, but at least he doesn't go on for pages about how his post is his cite - full stop, the end, he wins, and etc. I think he handles being that minority opinion pretty well, actually, and even when he's being rude I can still appreciate his value as a poster. Whether he just likes being the Devil's Advocate or he's really that way is still unclear, but talking to Bricker can be an exercise in self-restraint. Which you are clearly failing.

If you are mad at the mods you can take it to ATMB, but that won't get you far. If you're going to continue to engage Bricker in the future, I would just keep in mind a few things. 1) Pitting doesn't do anything when it comes to Bricker 2) Bricker rarely runs out of steam, so be prepared to go on for pages, because as soon as you give up or get bored he'll try to force you to concede defeat and 3) If you want to get away with what Bricker does, take a cue from his posting style.

Posting in the Pit doesn't get at him at all. Putting up a good fight in GD may, though. He's one of those posters that you just have to shrug off.

[Shayna]

So Shayna, I think you're a nice lady and all, but can you please let up on the rampant bolding and capitalization? You probably don't care at all about making my day, but if you did, I'm just saying that would be how to go about it. Okay, sure. For you, since you asked so nicely, I promise no more bold and caps in this thread.

Happy Mother's Day!

So this is what should have gone in GD, IMO, rather than the psychoanalysis of Shayna's echo-chamber malfunction.

Given this post (and the ones leading up to it), it seems to me that you're making a fair criticism of the law, and a fair rebuttal to Shayna's GD OP. Shayna, what say you? I say he's making no rebuttal at all to my OP because I didn't say anything in my OP about how a small business owner has to divvy up the returned portion of the premiums they paid that were not used for providing actual health care as proscribed by the law.

Frankly, that entire line of argument could be considered a hijack of my OP, considering the points I was making were:

1.) The provision that requires your health care premium to be used at a ratio of 80 (and in some cases 85, though I don't have the law at my fingertips and arguing about which loopholes that applies to would also be a hijack):20, is about to kick in and insurers who did not meet this obligation are going to have to start returning "overpayments" to the payers.

2.) The returned overpayments amount to a significant amount of money that will now go back out into the economy instead of sitting in cash stockpiles (which corporations are hoarding at the moment, not doing anything to stimulate the economy), CEO bonuses (which is where that money has always gone in the past; the notion that the insurance companies would use it to increase their own employees' salaries is downright freaking hilarious because we all know that would never happen), or other non-healthcare-related spending such as advertising.

3.) I would hope that companies who profit from promising to cover the back-end cost of our health care if we pay them for it in advance, being held to actually doing that is something we could all agree was generally a good thing. We have all kinds of monitoring systems in place to ensure our charitable dollars are actually going to the causes they claim to support and we are universally up in arms when our funds go substantially into the pockets of the charity itself and not to the cause. In fact, people are put in prison for fraud when they don't meet certain thresholds of using charitable donations for the actual cause they claim to represent. I don't think I was out of my mind to hope that we could find agreement that holding for-profit organizations in the health care industry to such standards was a "good thing." See, for example, Doctors Without Borders (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277), whose ratio is 92.1: 7.9.

4.) $1.3 billion is not chump change, and it isn't even the final number in how consumers have benefited from this provision, because many insurers actually have met that requirement and have already either reduced their premiums or returned overcharges to the insured. Again, how is this a bad thing?

Now, if you're Bricker and you see that someone has diverted the conversation from "returning unused premiums to consumers (including the small businesses who, even if they didn't have to pass those refunds on to their employees, still count as consumers) should be something we can agree is a 'good thing', right?" to "small businesses aren't consumers," which is a pedantic diversion, you see that as your opening to puff up your tail feathers, declare your superiority because you read the Straight Dope (I'm still laughing my ass off at that one), and make a personal attack against the person trying to find a common principle we can, for freaking once, agree upon ... in Great Debates!

I hope that answered your question, LHOD.

No, I don't think I ever say that. You do. Perhaps you are confusing yourself with me?

As for the anger/passion thingy, when soneone says they loathe someone, that's usually a sign of anger, not passion. N'est pas? Again, I ask, so what? Isn't this where we're supposed to go when someone else here posts something that makes us angry? Is there a reason I'm not allowed to be angry that that little shitstain does this to me Every. Fucking. Time. I. Post. Something. In. GD!? And gets away with it? And is usually wrong, as he actually turns out to be here, as well? Why shouldn't that make me angry? After 12 1/2 years of dealing with that bullshit, yes, I'm angry that he still does it and still gets away with doing it.

[Shayna]

So are you mad at Bricker because Bricker isn't your cuppa political tea or because of how he talks to you? My whole family are conservatives (though not necessarily Republicans), and I love them to bits and pieces. I don't "get mad" at people because of their politics - that would be stupid. I was infuriated that he once again attacked me personally in the GD forum. He didn't just use a "style" of conversation, he attacked me, personally. He does it often. I'm bloody well sick of it. (Though after a lovely evening of wine, a funny movie, a visit with friends and some mother's day love from my wonderful hubby, I'm actually rather "meh" about it now. But in the heat of the moment? Yeah. Outraged.)

Bricker is abrasive, but he's useful. He's often the minority opinion, but at least he doesn't go on for pages about how his post is his cite - full stop, the end, he wins, and etc. I think he handles being that minority opinion pretty well, actually, and even when he's being rude I can still appreciate his value as a poster. Whether he just likes being the Devil's Advocate or he's really that way is still unclear, but talking to Bricker can be an exercise in self-restraint. Which you are clearly failing.

If you are mad at the mods you can take it to ATMB, but that won't get you far. If you're going to continue to engage Bricker in the future, I would just keep in mind a few things. 1) Pitting doesn't do anything when it comes to Bricker 2) Bricker rarely runs out of steam, so be prepared to go on for pages, because as soon as you give up or get bored he'll try to force you to concede defeat and 3) If you want to get away with what Bricker does, take a cue from his posting style.

Posting in the Pit doesn't get at him at all. Putting up a good fight in GD may, though. He's one of those posters that you just have to shrug off. I find him utterly useless, but that's a matter of opinion I'm more than happy to concede isn't universally shared and that's fine. I have as much or more steam as he does, and if I run out of it, I'm happy to shut the door on his smarmy ass and walk away. But between him and me, it's usually him having to concede defeat to me. Though in this case it isn't about "winning" or "losing" an argument, it's about him being completely out of line in that thread. At least I took it where it belonged to insult him.

[Loach]

Stop polluting a perfectly good Pitting with that Debate nonsense .

[John Mace]

Again, I ask, so what? Isn't this where we're supposed to go when someone else here posts something that makes us angry?

Yes, it is.

[monstro]

Shayna, you have every right to be mad. I'd be mad too. And splitting hairs between passion and anger is just stupid. Both are intense emotions about pixels on a screen. Just because one has a negative valence doesn't make it inferior or "wrong". A feeling just is.

[Bricker]

That's an interesting -- and calmer -- response, Shayna.

I notice you have wisely abandoned the line of argument that Halperin is a conservative, and thus unimpeachable as a source (at least by me).

You now seem be arguing that the entire question of whether the subscriber gets any money is a hijack of your point, which is simply that this is a generally good development for the world.

I don't really have any comment to that argument. My response was to the claim that this money was being returned, by law, to the subscriber, and the purpose of my response was to highlight a loophole that did not actually require such return. Since you have now declared that this rumination is a hijack, and the entirety of your point is that the Affordable Health Care Act is good, I guess have I have nothing further to contribute.

[Morgenstern]

Alex, I'll take Redheads and Menopause for $1000 please.

[Ambivalid]

Isn't Halperin co-author of Game Change-that "less-than-flattering" biography of Sarah Palin and the McCain/Palin campaign? If so, definitely not conservative. He's a fixture on MSNBC. He and the other author, John Heilman.

[Farmer Jane]

Didn't he write The Note during the '04 campaign?

[Shayna]

Shayna, you have every right to be mad. I'd be mad too. And splitting hairs between passion and anger is just stupid. Both are intense emotions about pixels on a screen. Just because one has a negative valence doesn't make it inferior or "wrong". A feeling just is. Thanks, monstro. Happy Mother's Day hugs to you.



That's an interesting -- and calmer -- response, Shayna.

I notice you have wisely abandoned the line of argument that Halperin is a conservative, and thus unimpeachable as a source (at least by me).

You now seem be arguing that the entire question of whether the subscriber gets any money is a hijack of your point, which is simply that this is a generally good development for the world.

I don't really have any comment to that argument. My response was to the claim that this money was being returned, by law, to the subscriber, and the purpose of my response was to highlight a loophole that did not actually require such return. Since you have now declared that this rumination is a hijack, and the entirety of your point is that the Affordable Health Care Act is good, I guess have I have nothing further to contribute. Oh just shut the fuck up already, you sick sonofabitch. The notion that I've abandoned an argument because I simply didn't mention that part of it in one or two replies is proof positive what a stinking stupid idiot you are.

And Proof The Second Part is that I never, ever used the word "subscriber" anywhere in my original post, nor is that term used in the linked OpEd. Consumers are getting back more than $1.3 billion and you are free to "define" consumers however the bloody fuck you want, (I'm sorry Farmer Jane, but I have to bold this; I hope you'll forgive me) but that doesn't change the scope of my argument that that money is being returned, which is a) the right thing to do, and b) good for the economy.

But this post is evidence of even more than your absolute stupidity; it's proof that you comport yourself exactly like good little conservatives have been trained by their leaders to do: to pretend you've won an argument by twisting the argument itself to conform to whatever the hell you decide to invent it to be.

You're nothing more than a goddamn shill for the Republican party, and you have the nerve to tell me that I live in an echo chamber? It is to fucking laugh.

[Farmer Jane]

It's not that Bricker is right. It's just that he posts so freakishly smug. And like I said, as soon as you stop posting, he says you give up/he wins/etc.

(:

An exercise in patience, indeed.

[elucidator]

He has his moments. Unfortunately, they're moments. But he does have them!

[Martin Hyde]

This is embarrassing and honestly makes Shayna look like a crazy person.

She has done this in the past, if you question her factual assertions about Barack Obama she literally goes insane and says you are personally attacking her. I've been in threads where she blows up like this, in which the people questioning her receive no moderator admonishment (because they are not attacking her personally at all, but instead just questioning her facts and the biases that may underlie them) but she does receive admonishment, because she is clearly making personal attacks.

In this instance the fact remains she obviously was not familiar with the law, and happily crowed that all employers were required to simply pass these rebates back on to their employees. That was factually incorrect, and once exposed Bricker told her to actually read the law instead of having it interpreted for her (since that lead her down the path of being factually wrong), and that's caused her to blow up in an insane temper tantrum.

I'd be ashamed if I acted as stupid and childish as Shayna does on a regular basis.

[Richard Parker]

The gravamen of the pitting is that it's wildly unfair and an insult to claim Shayna is living in an echo chamber when (a) you have no idea what media she consumes and (b) the source she quoted on which you're basing this is hardly a leftist and (c) the error in the source isn't even obviously an error. Maybe calling someone blindered and irrationally biased is not an insult according to GD rules. I don't really know. But it's hardly the platonic ideal of civil discourse.

Is anyone seriously disputing that? Is Bricker even disputing it?

[Martin Hyde]

The gravamen of the pitting is that it's wildly unfair and an insult to claim Shayna is living in an echo chamber when (a) you have no idea what media she consumes and (b) the source she quoted on which you're basing this is hardly a leftist and (c) the error in the source isn't even obviously an error. Maybe calling someone blindered and irrationally biased is not an insult according to GD rules. I don't really know. But it's hardly the platonic ideal of civil discourse.

Is anyone seriously disputing that? Is Bricker even disputing it?

I think it's fair to say we have a pretty good idea what kind of media Shayna consumes. If you were following any of her threads in 2008 and since then, I think it is fair to use the extremely partisan news sources that she has linked to these boards probably hundreds if not thousands of times as a basis to say she mostly consumes news that tells her what she wants to hear.

If someone is showing bias, I personally don't know how it is a personal attack to say "you're biased."

[Richard Parker]

I think it's fair to say we have a pretty good idea what kind of media Shayna consumes. If you were following any of her threads in 2008 and since then, I think it is fair to use the extremely partisan news sources that she has linked to these boards probably hundreds if not thousands of times as a basis to say she mostly consumes news that tells her what she wants to hear.

If someone is showing bias, I personally don't know how it is a personal attack to say "you're biased."

Confirmation bias on your part seems an equally plausible diagnosis. Alternatively, it seems that one of the things Shayna enjoys doing on this board is cheerleading for Obama. Consequently, many of her posts are probably lefty sites debunking conservative myths. That doesn't say anything about what media she consumes. It says something about what she enjoys posting about. I read mostly libertarian blogs like Hit & Run and Volohk Conspiracy, but I rarely post about them.

And it is an insult to say that someone deliberately shelters herself from opposing views. It's possible that not everyone considers an insult. But I imagine most do. And, as I said, it is at least ad hominem since Shayna wasn't asking anyone to take her word for it.

[Farmer Jane]

Calling someone biased is an attempt to undercut the entire argument: They're biased, therefore their argument is weakened (provided the accusation is true). Fox is biased, George Soros is biased, SDMB membership is biased.

All of us have bias. Shayna has bias, Bricker has bias, the mods have bias. I can see how it's an insult, but it's also a fair one to lobby at someone in GD imho. So...if it is an insult, it's a really weak one.

Bricker may charge that someone is biased, but that's rarely the point of his argument. Or if it is, he at least puts forth a case.

edit again: Also, why would I care if she bolds anything?

[elucidator]

....I'd be ashamed if I acted as stupid and childish as Shayna does on a regular basis.

Rest assured, no worries there. You present as someone who went from the innocence of childhood to the bitterness of old age on the same birthday.

Its not too late, you know. Won't say its never too late, because the clock ticks. But its not too late yet.

[Richard Parker]

Calling someone biased is an attempt to undercut the entire argument: They're biased, therefore their argument is weakened (provided the accusation is true). Fox is biased, George Soros is biased, SDMB membership is biased.

All of us have bias. Shayna has bias, Bricker has bias, the mods have bias. I can see how it's an insult, but it's also a fair one to lobby at someone in GD imho. So...if it is an insult, it's a really weak one.

Bricker may charge that someone is biased, but that's rarely the point of his argument. Or if it is, he at least puts forth a case.

No, that's not correct. Bias is only relevant to the argument when the poster's credibility or even-handedness is at issue. That is very rarely the case. Much more often, an accusation of bias is entirely gratuitous to the actual argument, which was the case here. The entirety of Bricker's argument was that Halperin was wrong. Shayna's bias or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to that.

[Martin Hyde]

Confirmation bias on your part seems an equally plausible diagnosis. Alternatively, it seems that one of the things Shayna enjoys doing on this board is cheerleading for Obama. Consequently, many of her posts are probably lefty sites debunking conservative myths. That doesn't say anything about what media she consumes. It says something about what she enjoys posting about. I read mostly libertarian blogs like Hit & Run and Volohk Conspiracy, but I rarely post about them.

And it is an insult to say that someone deliberately shelters herself from opposing views. It's possible that not everyone considers an insult. But I imagine most do. And, as I said, it is at least ad hominem since Shayna wasn't asking anyone to take her word for it.

Sure, it could be confirmation bias. But I maintain it is entirely fair to speculate about someone's media consumption based on their behavior here and the sources they link to here. I often link to the WSJ, and I'd have no problem if people here made the claim I mostly read conservative media. (The truth is I mostly read the WSJ and The Atlantic, sometimes FT, and outside of that most of my media consumption is on stuff outside the realm of politics and almost never gets brought up here.)

You're entitled to your opinion, but from what I have seen I don't believe just saying someone is biased, based on actionable material already in the GD thread itself (the biased news sources) is an ad hominem attack.

[John Mace]

The gravamen of the pitting is that it's wildly unfair and an insult to claim Shayna is living in an echo chamber when (a) you have no idea what media she consumes and (b) the source she quoted on which you're basing this is hardly a leftist and (c) the error in the source isn't even obviously an error. Maybe calling someone blindered and irrationally biased is not an insult according to GD rules. I don't really know. But it's hardly the platonic ideal of civil discourse.

Is anyone seriously disputing that? Is Bricker even disputing it?

It was far from "the platonic ideal of civil discourse". The part about reading the law was fine, IMHO. I don't think we have to hold everyone's hand in GD as they find the facts. If you're an OP, you should be bring the facts to the debate, not just someone's opinion.

The dig about the echo chamber and the comparison to himself as a paragon of open mindedness was completely inappropriate. I guess there is some long history between the two, and maybe Bricker was thinkin "on no, here we go again :rolleyes: ", but it still doesn't add to reasoned debate.

It should be noted that the OP has yet to acknowledge that she was wrong on some of the facts. AFACT, she was.

[Richard Parker]

You're entitled to your opinion, but from what I have seen I don't believe just saying someone is biased, based on actionable material already in the GD thread itself (the biased news sources) is an ad hominem attack.

It's not a matter of opinion. It is either is ad hominem or not. And it clearly was in this context. Shayna could be completely biased or completely bias-free and it would have no effect on the truth of Bricker's claim as it was relevant to the GD thread.

I'm not saying it's an egregious insult. And, as I said, I'm not even sure it's against the rules. But it doesn't contribute to civil discussion, that's for sure.

[Richard Parker]

It's probably also worth saying that I don't think Bricker is a jack-ass. I think he's quite thoughtful and generally one of the posters that makes this board worth reading. And I think this kind of ad hominem is pretty common in GD. But that doesn't make Shayna wrong about her specific complaint in this thread. At most, it makes this thread an overreaction.

[John Mace]

It's probably also worth saying that I don't think Bricker is a jack-ass. I think he's quite thoughtful and generally one of the posters that makes this board worth reading. And I think this kind of ad hominem is pretty common in GD. But that doesn't make Shayna wrong about her specific complaint in this thread. At most, it makes this thread an overreaction.

I don't know HOW YOU CAN SAY THIS THREAD IS AN OVERREACTION!!!!

[Farmer Jane]

The entirety of Bricker's argument was that Halperin was wrong. Shayna's bias or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to that.

Then why get so upset about it? Calling someone biased in GD is part of the game around here. I've been called conservative/right wing/Republican because my views weren't liberal enough. Hell, someone even called me Newt Gingrich before. Any time I've taken a Devil's Advocate in a same sex marriage debate, I've been called a homophobe. That, to me, is more insulting (because it wasn't true) that saying someone with a history of liberal bias has a liberal bias/is influenced by liberal commentators.

[Leaper]

It's not that Bricker is right. It's just that he posts so freakishly smug. And like I said, as soon as you stop posting, he says you give up/he wins/etc.


For everything else Bricker does or is, I don't recall him ever doing or saying that.

Are you confusing him for What The...?!??

[Richard Parker]

Then why get so upset about it? Calling someone biased in GD is part of the game around here. I've been called conservative/right wing/Republican because my views weren't liberal enough. Hell, someone even called me Newt Gingrich before. Any time I've taken a Devil's Advocate in a same sex marriage debate, I've been called a homophobe. That, to me, is more insulting (because it wasn't true) that saying someone with a history of liberal bias has a liberal bias/is influenced by liberal commentators.

Yeah, OK, but this is an argument about whether the degree of Shayna's outrage is justified, not about whether the complaint in general is warranted. My position is that she is fundamentally correct that Bricker's post was largely ad hominem. She is not, as Martin Hyde puts it, "going insane" to say this was a personal attack. It was.

Political debate gets frustrating. It's hard to avoid calling other people out when you think their position is based on tribal identification rather than reason. But in the relative calm of after-the-fact reflection, I would have thought we could all agree that such accusations of bias are usually little more than name-calling.

[Shayna]

Yeah, OK, but this is an argument about whether the degree of Shayna's outrage is justified, not about whether the complaint in general is warranted. My position is that she is fundamentally correct that Bricker's post was largely ad hominem. She is not, as Martin Hyde puts it, "going insane" to say this was a personal attack. It was.

Political debate gets frustrating. It's hard to avoid calling other people out when you think their position is based on tribal identification rather than reason. But in the relative calm of after-the-fact reflection, I would have thought we could all agree that such accusations of bias are usually little more than name-calling. Pshaw. I hope you're not holding your breath. I couldn't even get us all to agree that putting more than $1.3 billion back into the economy was a good thing, or that requiring for-profit health insurance providers to use 80% of your premium money on actual health care and not lining massively wealthy CEOs' pockets is a good thing. And those just seem like basic common sense to me.

But then I forget that trolls like Martin Hyde and Bricker live under the rocks around here. Go figure.

[ElvisL1ves]

Any time I've taken a Devil's Advocate in a same sex marriage debate, I've been called a homophobe.This board operates under the assumption that what you post is what you mean. Taking a position for the fun of argumentation, without clearly saying that's what you're doing (as Bricker so often does to his enormous discredit), is considered dishonest or even trolling. If you argue a homophobic position, you have no right to complain about being called a homophobe. The fight against ignorance cannot always be polite and remain effective.

[elucidator]

Devil doesn't need advocates, he's got lawyers.

[Farmer Jane]

This board operates under the assumption that what you post is what you mean. Taking a position for the fun of argumentation, without clearly saying that's what you're doing (as Bricker so often does to his enormous discredit), is considered dishonest or even trolling. If you argue a homophobic position, you have no right to complain about being called a homophobe. The fight against ignorance cannot always be polite and remain effective.

I;d put out that disclaimer.

[ElvisL1ves]

I;d put out that disclaimer.Problem is, that's a common tactic by people who aren't interested in having to defend a statement that they actually do wish to believe, knowing it's indefensible. Better to just be sincere in what you say and in how you respond to responses. Bricker's failure to do so is at the heart of much of his difficulty here.

[Measure for Measure]

This board operates under the assumption that what you post is what you mean. Taking a position for the fun of argumentation, without clearly saying that's what you're doing (as Bricker so often does to his enormous discredit), is considered dishonest or even trolling. If you argue a homophobic position, you have no right to complain about being called a homophobe. The fight against ignorance cannot always be polite and remain effective. Problem is, that's a common tactic by people who aren't interested in having to defend a statement that they actually do wish to believe, knowing it's indefensible. Better to just be sincere in what you say and in how you respond to responses. Bricker's failure to do so is at the heart of much of his difficulty here. There's something to that... but Bricker would note that his POV is of the minority in this forum, so he should be cut some slack. Those on the left would be cut more slack for similar behavior, he might say.


I say that we're here to fight ignorance. Bricker's post are salutatory to the extent they do this, worthy of chiding to the extent that they take our eyes off the ball.

[elucidator]

If only we had someone willing to expose liberal hypocrisy! Sadly, no.

[emacknight]

If only we had someone willing to expose liberal hypocrisy! Sadly, no.

If only there was less of it.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

You're entitled to your opinion, but from what I have seen I don't believe just saying someone is biased, based on actionable material already in the GD thread itself (the biased news sources) is an ad hominem attack.
It is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem is where you address features of the debater's personality instead of addressing the debating points themselves. This level of ad hominem is, unfortunately, allowed in GD, but that doesn't mean it's good practice.

That said, Shayna, after reading your response to me upthread, I am more convinced than I was to begin with that Bricker's point wasn't a threadshit or a hijack, nor is he a troll. You made the claim that this return of 1.3 billion into the economy is a good thing; Bricker made the counter-claim that its effects wouldn't be as great as you'd claimed, and said that the benefit wouldn't necessarily go to the end consumer. Both of these are perfectly valid responses to your OP's claim.

Y'all both screwed up, in my opinion--him by making snotty comments about your bias, and you by calling his legitimate responses trolling.

[Southern Yankee]

You totally just won my vote for the Doper of the year award. Thank you for that.

Seconded.

[John Mace]

That said, Shayna, after reading your response to me upthread, I am more convinced than I was to begin with that Bricker's point wasn't a threadshit or a hijack, nor is he a troll. You made the claim that this return of 1.3 billion into the economy is a good thing; Bricker made the counter-claim that its effects wouldn't be as great as you'd claimed, and said that the benefit wouldn't necessarily go to the end consumer. Both of these are perfectly valid responses to your OP's claim.

The post in question, the first one from Bricker in that thread, didn't make any claims.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

The post in question, the first one from Bricker in that thread, didn't make any claims.Well...it claimed that the "1.3 billion will go into health-care consumers' pockets" business was a self-serving administration lie. But that might be splitting hairs, and I'd just as soon not do that. I do think Bricker was out of line; I also think that Shayna's response to his later clarifications, in which she calls him a troll, are off-base.

[Martin Hyde]

It is the very definition of an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem is where you address features of the debater's personality instead of addressing the debating points themselves. This level of ad hominem is, unfortunately, allowed in GD, but that doesn't mean it's good practice.

I don't believe it is, actually. A classic ad hominem, and in fact the "very definition of an ad hominem" is if you attack the "man" to undermine their argument.

That isn't what happened here. Based on an incorrect piece of information, Shayna said something false--that employers were required to pass on rebates to the individual employees. So when Bricker brought up the issue of bias, unless I'm confused about the chronology, it was after Shayna's point on this matter was totally disproven factually. Her assertion was factually, conclusively false. Bricker's post was more in the form of "advice" to Shayna so that she could avoid bringing false information to the table in the future.

Now I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I don't think Bricker was being some genuine nice guy to Shayna, but he was not attacking her bias to undermine her argument. Her argument was already undermined by the factually falsity of her claims, and he was just stating that her bias is why she is likely to do that, and gave her some advice to correct it in the future.

[John Mace]

Well...it claimed that the "1.3 billion will go into health-care consumers' pockets" business was a self-serving administration lie. But that might be splitting hairs, and I'd just as soon not do that. I do think Bricker was out of line; I also think that Shayna's response to his later clarifications, in which she calls him a troll, are off-base.

I don't believe that Bricker was trolling in this instance.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Her assertion was factually, conclusively false. Bricker's post was more in the form of "advice" to Shayna so that she could avoid bringing false information to the table in the future.
1) No it wasn't. It still hasn't been; rather, information has been added to the equation to show that maybe this isn't something to crow so much about.
2) "Advice"? Bullshit. Advice is something you give folks in hopes that they'll listen and appreciate it, and Bricker is way too smart to think that anyone would be receptive to the "advice" in his post.
3) No matter what, his first post in that thread did not serve to advance the discussion, as his posts in this thread have done.

So here's what real advice looks like, to two posters whom I respect and enjoy reading.

Shayna, I'd suggest letting the snark and condescension roll off you, if possible, and address the meat of Bricker's post; I think you're giving what he says far too little credit. If he's correct, if significant quantities of this money will go toward insurance-providing employers rather than toward individuals (who are by most understandings the real "health care consumers" inasmuch as they're the ones with health to take care of), then Pelosi was at the very least putting a strong spin on this news, and it's perfectly fair to bring it up in response.

Bricker, I'd suggest you refrain from echo-chamber comments in GD. Especially when you could be making meaty points instead.

Neither of these pieces of advice are guaranteed to be followed, natch ;), but they're meant sincerely.

[John Mace]

Shayna, I'd suggest letting the snark and condescension roll off you, if possible, and address the meat of Bricker's post; I think you're giving what he says far too little credit. If he's correct, if significant quantities of this money will go toward insurance-providing employers rather than toward individuals (who are by most understandings the real "health care consumers" inasmuch as they're the ones with health to take care of), then Pelosi was at the very least putting a strong spin on this news, and it's perfectly fair to bring it up in response.

Bricker, I'd suggest you refrain from echo-chamber comments in GD. Especially when you could be making meaty points instead.

Neither of these pieces of advice are guaranteed to be followed, natch ;), but they're meant sincerely.

Fish gotta swim; birds gotta fly.

[Martin Hyde]

1) No it wasn't. It still hasn't been; rather, information has been added to the equation to show that maybe this isn't something to crow so much about.

Shayna, quite obnoxiously acted like a jackass when telling me I was wrong about employers not being required to pass on the rebate. The fact is, employers are not required to pass the rebate straight back to the consumer, period. We've cited the statute itself, any claims to the contrary are not based in fact and are plain wrong. Period.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Shayna, quite obnoxiously acted like a jackass when telling me I was wrong about employers not being required to pass on the rebate. The fact is, employers are not required to pass the rebate straight back to the consumer, period. We've cited the statute itself, any claims to the contrary are not based in fact and are plain wrong. Period.

Don't get so emotional. You are clearly over-reacting.

[Northern Piper]

Getting back to the title of this page, I have to say I disagree. I think Bricker brings a lot to the board and he's not a jackass. He argues issues in a legalistic fashion, but that's his training.

As for the actual details of the GD thead, the rebuttals here, the rejoinders, the sur-rebuttals, and so on, I've found them entertaining, in a "slow down to watch the first responders at the accident" kind of way.

[CandidGamera]

Ahem. Jackass Extraordinaire, Esquire. :D

[What the .... ?!?!]

For everything else Bricker does or is, I don't recall him ever doing or saying that.

Are you confusing him for What The...?!??

He's much better than that......ah, I see what you did :eek:

[dngnb8]

"the echo chamber of publications that reinforce [my] view."

That one is classic. I hope Bricker doesnt mind if I use that one.

[BobLibDem]

There are times when the ignore function should be used. If you think bricker is a fucking asshole, just put him on your ignore list. I do and I did. I'd love to have the time that he does to do hours of research into case law to defend every one of my arguments but even if I did, I wouldn't. I'd just love to have the free time that he does. He's a right winger who is able to quote the law to match his right wing agenda. If he had a left wing agenda, he could do the same. It doesn't interest me in the least to take that approach, I'm more interested in policies that do public good than in constructing hyper-technical screeds about whether something is or isn't legal. If he gets you that worked up, just ignore him. Life is too short to waste on the likes of him.

[John Mace]

There are times when the ignore function should be used. If you think bricker is a fucking asshole, just put him on your ignore list. I do and I did. I'd love to have the time that he does to do hours of research into case law to defend every one of my arguments but even if I did, I wouldn't. I'd just love to have the free time that he does. He's a right winger who is able to quote the law to match his right wing agenda. If he had a left wing agenda, he could do the same. It doesn't interest me in the least to take that approach, I'm more interested in policies that do public good than in constructing hyper-technical screeds about whether something is or isn't legal. If he gets you that worked up, just ignore him. Life is too short to waste on the likes of him.

While sometime inappropriate, more times than not it's because someone introduces the idea that "x" is illegal and the person should be prosecuted. In that case, an actual understanding of the law is essential to the argument.

[ElvisL1ves]

I think Bricker brings a lot to the board and he's not a jackass. He argues issues in a legalistic fashion, but that's his training.
Don't you think his training includes grasping the distinction between advocacy and analysis? He habitually presents the one to us as if it were the other, as you know and as he most certainly knows. That is the central reason for his reputation for dishonesty. If it were mere prickishness, well, that's just life.

[What the .... ?!?!]

There are times when the ignore function should be used. If you think bricker is a fucking asshole, just put him on your ignore list. I do and I did. I'd love to have the time that he does to do hours of research into case law to defend every one of my arguments but even if I did, I wouldn't. I'd just love to have the free time that he does. He's a right winger who is able to quote the law to match his right wing agenda. If he had a left wing agenda, he could do the same. It doesn't interest me in the least to take that approach, I'm more interested in policies that do public good than in constructing hyper-technical screeds about whether something is or isn't legal. If he gets you that worked up, just ignore him. Life is too short to waste on the likes of him.

Further proof that your kind are the real haters.

[BobLibDem]

Further proof that your kind are the real haters.

Bullshit. We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda. Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me. He's just a condescending little douche with a political compass that points in the wrong direction.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Further proof that your kind are the real haters.

Because liberals are supposed to be tolerant of anything and everything that is done to them? They're supposed to roll over and take it, otherwise they're "haters"?

[John Mace]

Bullshit. We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda. Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me. He's just a condescending little douche with a political compass that points in the wrong direction.

I hate to tell you this, Bob, but if you think Zimmerman is guilty, then it's your political bias that is blinding you from the facts in the case. He may well be guilty, but the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult job proving that. My money would be on a jury acquitting Zimmerman.

Yes, he shot the kid. But that's not the question before the court. The question before the court is whether or not he broke the law. That's for a jury to decide. And one thing about Bricker, is that if the jury finds him guilty, he won't say he isn't. Only the jury can decide that.

[dngnb8]

Bullshit. We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda. Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me. He's just a condescending little douche with a political compass that points in the wrong direction.

U Mad Bro?

Seems to me your hate is fueled by your political agenda.

[Bricker]

Bullshit. We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty

And when I was a public defender... I also looked for any way I could to construe the evidence to make my clients appear not guilty.

And I was often successful.

[CarnalK]

And when I was a public defender... I also looked for any way I could to construe the evidence to make my clients appear not guilty.

And I was often successful.

Not often enough to get a job at a real firm though? lol, j/k.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Okay, let's recap. Bricker was right about what the law said. Point for Bricker. Bricker wrongly identified Mark Halperin as "an administration official", and his comments as "self-serving". Point for Shayna.

Shayna flies a million miles off the fucking handle; a million points and the game to us, the amused onlookers.

[you with the face]

He may well be guilty, but the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult job proving that.

Has the evidence against Zimmerman been released to the public yet? I don't think so, but perhaps I've overlooked something. To have made such an assertion so matter-of-factly, you would have to have seen the cards they're holding. Have you?


My money would be on a jury acquitting Zimmerman.


Why? Based on what the public knows, Zimmerman has as much evidence going for him as the average guy who shoots himself out of a fist fight that he started.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Not often enough to get a job at a real firm though? lol, j/k.

What an utterly fucking stupid remark.

And the idea that working at firm affords you more expertise or evinces greater ability in criminal trial practice shows only how little you know about legal practice and that your notions about the meaning of taking different sorts of legal career paths are entirely baseless, uninformed, and deserving of absolutely no weight.

Whoops! I forgot to add "lol! J/k!"

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me.
Interestingly, I've found that Bricker, more than any other person on this board that I've interacted with, is willing to admit error and change his mind. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but I think those are just issues on which he hasn't changed his mind yet. He'll stick to a point like a lamprey to a shark, but if you play the same game as him, then besides mixing metaphors, he'll recognize a better argument.

[Morgenstern]

What an utterly fucking stupid remark.

And the idea that working at firm affords you more expertise or evinces greater ability in criminal trial practice shows only how little you know about legal practice and that your notions about the meaning of taking different sorts of legal career paths are entirely baseless, uninformed, and deserving of absolutely no weight.

Whoops! I forgot to add "lol! J/k!"


LOL, I think you were whooshed.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Why? Based on what the public knows, Zimmerman has as much evidence going for him as the average guy who shoots himself out of a fist fight that he started.

The prosecution will need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and do not have much evidence to rebut Zimmerman's allegation of self-defense. Even if the jury rejects Z's testimony as self-serving, you can't sustain a conviction where a self-serving, but prima facie, affirmative defense goes unrebutted. That is far too short of BRD. Thompson v. State, 552 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

[CarnalK]

The prosecution will need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and do not have much evidence to rebut Zimmerman's allegation of self-defense. Even if the jury rejects Z's testimony as self-serving, you can't sustain a conviction where a self-serving, but prima facie, affirmative defense goes unrebutted. That is far too short of BRD. Thompson v. State, 552 So. 2d 264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989).

Soooo, you really need another Zimmerman thread? Jerkoff.

[John Mace]

Has the evidence against Zimmerman been released to the public yet? I don't think so, but perhaps I've overlooked something. To have made such an assertion so matter-of-factly, you would have to have seen the cards they're holding. Have you?



Why? Based on what the public knows, Zimmerman has as much evidence going for him as the average guy who shoots himself out of a fist fight that he started.

The law itself, and the lack of witnesses. And the injuries sustained by Zimmerman.

From what we've seen so far, I think it's going to be tough to get 12 people to agree, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty. Maybe there's some super-secret evidence that will be the coup de grace, and if so, we'll see it when the time comes. But if I had to bet one way or another right now, I wouldn't bet on the super-secret stuff.

[elucidator]

Once again, TG, IANAL. I am not bound to unnatural constraints, and can think and believe what the evidence indicates without reference to op. cit. or stark staring decisis. There are things I think he's very likely guilty of, barring some Perry Mason revelation in the last ten minutes of the show.

Is he guilty of reckless endangerment, putting himself into a position of law enforcement he had neither the training nor the temperament to handle? Yes. Is a presumably innocent young man dead as a result? Yes. Was all of this entirely avoidable if he had simply made his phone call and stayed the hell out of it? Yes.

Is he likely guilty of premeditated murder? Probably no, since I find it hard to believe he could premeditate his into or out of a paper bag. All of these opinions can be reversed by the presentation of convincing evidence.

But the notion that my opinions, as a private citizen, are somehow bound by the arcane and sophistic legalisms of the courtroom is absurd. I am not obliged to consider the precedent of Tweedledum v Tweedledumber in my ruminations. Feh! as they say in Lubbock.

[dngnb8]

Interestingly, I've found that Bricker, more than any other person on this board that I've interacted with, is willing to admit error and change his mind. I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but I think those are just issues on which he hasn't changed his mind yet. He'll stick to a point like a lamprey to a shark, but if you play the same game as him, then besides mixing metaphors, he'll recognize a better argument.

I get this impression as well, and I am a board newby

[John Mace]

Once again, TG, IANAL. I am not bound to unnatural constraints, and can think and believe what the evidence indicates without reference to op. cit. or stark staring decisis. There are things I think he's very likely guilty of, barring some Perry Mason revelation in the last ten minutes of the show.

Is he guilty of reckless endangerment, putting himself into a position of law enforcement he had neither the training nor the temperament to handle? Yes. Is a presumably innocent young man dead as a result? Yes. Was all of this entirely avoidable if he had simply made his phone call and stayed the hell out of it? Yes.

Is he likely guilty of premeditated murder? Probably no, since I find it hard to believe he could premeditate his into or out of a paper bag. All of these opinions can be reversed by the presentation of convincing evidence.

But the notion that my opinions, as a private citizen, are somehow bound by the arcane and sophistic legalisms of the courtroom is absurd. I am not obliged to consider the precedent of Tweedledum v Tweedledumber in my ruminations. Feh! as they say in Lubbock.

Sure. Asked if I think he might have committed a crime, I will say quite possibly. Asked if I think he will be convicted, I will say probably not. The prosector has to convince 12 people not that he probably committed a crime, but that he did so beyond a reasonable doubt. No easy task, given the facts we know.

[you with the face]

The law itself, and the lack of witnesses.

The lack of witnesses that you know about.

Seriously, the guy has been charged not with manslaughter but with 2nd degree murder. And the charge has stuck, despite all the sticky wicketness associated with SYG. Just on that basis alone, I find it weird that it anyone can say--without seeing the State's evidence--that the prosectution will have very difficult time proving their case. You don't know what cards they have because those cards have been not been disclosed. Why? Because the defense doesn't want them disclosed. Make of that what you will.

The only reason I'm calling you on this is because you called out BobLibDem for being blinded by bias for thinking Zimmerman is guilty. But to assert or imply that the prosecution's case is too weak to score a conviction--when you don't even know the content of their case--ain't exactly a non-biased, objective interpretation of events either.

That's neither here nor there as to the question of Bricker's jackassity.

[John Mace]

The lack of witnesses that you know about.

Seriously, the guy has been charged not with manslaughter but with 2nd degree murder. And the charge has stuck,
What do you mean, the charge has stuck?

despite all the sticky wicketness associated with SYG. Just on that basis alone, I find it weird that it anyone can say--without seeing the State's evidence--that the prosectution will have very difficult time proving their case. You don't know what cards they have because those cards have been not been disclosed. Why? Because the defense doesn't want them disclosed. Make of that what you will.

The only reason I'm calling you on this is because you called out BobLibDem for being blinded by bias for thinking Zimmerman is guilty. But to assert or imply that the prosecution's case is too weak to score a conviction--when you don't even know the content of their case--ain't exactly a non-biased, objective interpretation of events either.

That's neither here nor there as to the question of Bricker's jackassity.

Anyone who thinks he is guilty or innocent is being blinded, whether on the right or the left. What matters is that he gets his day in court and is judged by a jury of his peers. None of us in any situation to say, one way or another, whether he is guilty.

[Bambro]

I like Bricker. He's a swell motherfucker.

[Mtgman]

The charge against Zimmerman is second degree murder (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html) which means the prosecution will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubtThe unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individualAny murder conviction is a hard case, and this one, with the attendant national focus, and the stand your ground law, will be doubly so.

I think some of the rush to judgment in this case, in either direction, has been shameful, and a lot of people, regardless of the eventual outcome, are going to be very angry.

Enjoy,
Steven

[you with the face]

Anyone who thinks he is guilty or innocent is being blinded, whether on the right or the left.

I'm sorry, but this is 100% unmitigated bollocks. Believe it or not, it's perfectly rational to form an opinion about someone's likely culpability based on available information. Doing so doesn't require one to be "blinded". It only requires a working brainstem.

I guess you also think it takes an act of "blindness" to believe that John Edwards is guilty as hell, too.

Get outta here with this nonsense.

[dngnb8]

bollocks.

Remember remember the 5th of November,
The Gun Powder Treason Plot.....

[John Mace]

So, you're not going to explain what you meant when you said the charges had stuck?

I'm sorry, but this is 100% unmitigated bollocks. Believe it or not, it's perfectly rational to form an opinion about someone's likely culpability based on available information. Doing so doesn't require one to be "blinded". It only requires a working brainstem.
Certainly. But I wasn't talking about someone who had an opinion of the likelihood of that. I was talking about someone who was certain of it.

I guess you also think it takes an act of "blindness" to believe that John Edwards is guilty as hell, too.
Yes, it does, depending on what you think he is guilty of. We know he fathered the child-- guilty. We know he paid the woman to keep it secret-- guilty. We know he got the money from other people-- guilty. What we don't know is if the law proscribes what he did, and that hinges on whether his motive was to hide it from his wife or to keep his candidacy viable. The law is not so crystal clear on this as most people think. Only the jury can tell us that after the trial. He's the epitome of an unsympathetic defendant, and I wouldn't want to be his defense attorney, but this isn't a slam dunk case.

[Bricker]

I'm sorry, but this is 100% unmitigated bollocks. Believe it or not, it's perfectly rational to form an opinion about someone's likely culpability based on available information. Doing so doesn't require one to be "blinded". It only requires a working brainstem.

I guess you also think it takes an act of "blindness" to believe that John Edwards is guilty as hell, too.

Get outta here with this nonsense.

Yes, I'd say it does. The evidence against Edwards is not strong, and the application of the law this way is novel. He may be guilty, but if you take the position that he's guilty as hell -- which I understand to mean obvious, complete, clear, unmitigated guilt -- i'd say you're blinded.

[Hamlet]

Yes, I'd say it does. The evidence against Edwards is not strong, and the application of the law this way is novel. He may be guilty, but if you take the position that he's guilty as hell -- which I understand to mean obvious, complete, clear, unmitigated guilt -- i'd say you're blinded.Yeah, because people often donate money to Edwards' campaign to be used to hide his mistress and his baby rather than actually, oh I don't know, campaign. Sure the prosecution's case is much tougher with Bunny Mellon being unable to testify and Fred Baron being dead and all. But it stretches the bounds of credibility to buy the "he didn't know" defense. I'm not saying the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but I have no problem concluding for myself that he's guilty as hell.

[you with the face]

So, you're not going to explain what you meant when you said the charges had stuck?

What is not to get about that statement? The charge of 2nd degree murder still stands. Meaning, it hasn't been dropped.


Certainly. But I wasn't talking about someone who had an opinion of the likelihood of that. I was talking about someone who was certain of it.

Which is quibbling of the exasperating Bricker variety. Having an opinion is not mutually exclusive to expressing certainty. You seem awfully certain yourself that the prosecution's case is too weak for conviction. This is as much of an opinion as believing with equal confidence that Zimmerman is guilty. It takes as much "blindness" to make either statements.


Yes, it does, depending on what you think he is guilty of.

I think he's guilty, but i'm far from conservative. So which kind of bias is blinding me, causing me to reach this crazy opinion of mine?

Is it possible, in your view, to simply look at available evidence and draw conclusions from it without necessarily being blinded by bias? As long as the thought process which leads to conclusion is rational and logically sound, that's all that should matter.

Again, if being certain about something was enough to discredit someone's supposed objectivity, then you are not the guy to be diagnosing other people as blinded. Only people expressing confidence in their beliefs would be willing to place money on something as uncertain as a jury's verdict when we don't even know what the State knows.

[Bricker]

Yeah, because people often donate money to Edwards' campaign to be used to hide his mistress and his baby rather than actually, oh I don't know, campaign. Sure the prosecution's case is much tougher with Bunny Mellon being unable to testify and Fred Baron being dead and all. But it stretches the bounds of credibility to buy the "he didn't know" defense. I'm not saying the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but I have no problem concluding for myself that he's guilty as hell.

He knew he was getting money. But he regarded the money as a gift from wealthy friends to help him hide his infidelity, not a campaign donation. I have no trouble believing that even if he had not been the VP nominee, he would have taken that money, and that it would have been offered to him.

Maybe I am wrong, but I can't believe you see it as so completely obvious as to have only one answer in your mind.

[John Mace]

What is not to get about that statement? The charge of 2nd degree murder still stands. Meaning, it hasn't been dropped.
OK. But that doesn't speak to his guilt. It only says that he's going to trial. Lost of people are found not guilty during a trial.



Which is quibbling of the exasperating Bricker variety. Having an opinion is not mutually exclusive to expressing certainty. You seem awfully certain yourself that the prosecution's case is too weak for conviction. This is as much of an opinion as believing with equal confidence that Zimmerman is guilty. It takes as much "blindness" to make either statements.
No, I'm not certain at all, and I don't know how you'd get that from what I posted. I just said that if I had to bet, I'd bet for not guilty. If you want me to put percentages on it, I'd say 80/20 in favor of not guilty.



I think he's guilty, but i'm far from conservative. So which kind of bias is blinding me, causing me to reach this crazy opinion of mine?

Is it possible, in your view, to simply look at available evidence and draw conclusions from it without necessarily being blinded by bias? As long as the thought process which leads to conclusion is rational and logically sound, that's all that should matter.

Again, if being certain about something was enough to discredit someone's supposed objectivity, then you are not the guy to be diagnosing other people as blinded. Only people expressing confidence in their beliefs would be willing to place money on something as uncertain as a jury's verdict when we don't even know what the State knows.
I think what you're really saying is that he should be guilty. That the law should have been written so that what he did was a criminal act. I might even agree with you on that. But the law wasn't necessarily written that way. It's got a lot more wiggle room in there for him than I think you're acknowledging.

[RTFirefly]

None of us in any situation to say, one way or another, whether he is guilty.ALL of us are.

None of us are in a position to say whether there is sufficient evidence to convict him in a court of law of the crime he is charged with.

But he is motherfucking guilty of killing a kid who he had no need of killing, and who certainly didn't deserve death or anything close. That much is certain as the sunrise.

And if the state of Florida hadn't enshrined a statute in the law that all but makes murder legal, none of us would doubt that he'd be looking at 20 to life, either.

[you with the face]

I think what you're really saying is that he should be guilty. That the law should have been written so that what he did was a criminal act.

Uh no. I think you need to go back and read what I wrote, because this bears no relationship to what I'm saying.

[John Mace]

I think he's guilty.

OK, fine. I didn't want to do that, but go ahead and back that up with cites from the law in question. And tell us what evidence we have to support it.

[Measure for Measure]

I am agreeing with John Mace and Bricker on this page.




Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Spooky!

[zweisamkeit]

How about all y'all talking about the Treyvon/Zimmerman case TAKE IT TO ONE OF THE FIVE THOUSAND THREADS ALREADY DISCUSSING IT?

[RedFury]

Yes, it is.

Nope. ATMB is just a circle jerk.

Not that I give a shit either way. I get as mad as Shayna -- whom I happen to love -- I'd get a boot up my crack I night not notice for a while. Specially from from such a small-timer as whats' her name. Fuck, beyond their SDMB "title"...who gives a flying shit? And if they do, what the fuck is wrong with some people? Ass-likkers by nature?

Briker? Not worth it. Wingnut troll. Not sure why you engage him.

Exactly what he wants/expects...

Party on.

[you with the face]

OK, fine. I didn't want to do that, but go ahead and back that up with cites from the law in question. And tell us what evidence we have to support it.

Why do I have to cite law just to justify my belief that Edwards used his campaign donations to hide his affair?

I also think OJ killed his wife. Is it necessary that I cite statutes for that opinion too, or will you just concede your argument is fatally ridiculous?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

will you just concede your argument is fatally ridiculous?

Trying to get John Mace to concede a point is sorta like trying to get a puppy to crap where you want him to crap--it takes a real long time, and you have to put up with crap all over the house for that long time, sometimes in the most amazing places.

[Bricker]

Why do I have to cite law just to justify my belief that Edwards used his campaign donations to hide his affair?

I also think OJ killed his wife. Is it necessary that I cite statutes for that opinion too, or will you just concede your argument is fatally ridiculous?

The two situations are different.

With OJ, the disagreement surrounds a factual question: did OJ, take a knife and stab his ex-wife and her friend to death? If you believe he did, you would be justified in saying he's guilty; if you don't, then you'd be equally justified in saying he didn't.

But in the case of Edwards, there's much less question about what happened. That is, even the Edwards defense agrees that Fred Baron and Bunny Mellon gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Andrew Young in order to help Edwards conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter and his paternity of the offspring of that affair.

But that's not against the law. If I were to give you hundreds of thousands of dollars to conceal your affair with Andrew Dice Clay, as long as I paid gift tax on it, it would be legal.

The problem comes because at the same time, Edwards was engaged in a somewhat well-known election effort to become the Vice-President. So the prosecution contends that Mellon and Baron donated this money to Edwards to help his campaign -- after all, public knowledge of that affair would have seriously damaged, if not ended, his campaign.

He says, in effect, that the money was gifted to him to help him conceal the affair from his wife, who was then battling cancer -- in other words, whether or not he was the candidate for VP, he would have been the recipient of those funds.

So this is not quite the same as reaching a decision about OJ. In this case, the facts are more or less undisputed. The big question is -- what do they mean under the law?

Of course there are disputed facts -- that's why there's a trial. But the case doesn't resolve itself like the OJ case does. And while I can appreciate someone saying, in effect, "I agree with the prosecution's theory," I don't understand the absolute certainty that would support "guilty as hell."

[John Mace]

Why do I have to cite law just to justify my belief that Edwards used his campaign donations to hide his affair?

Further to what Bricker posted, you have to know how the law defines "campaign contribution". After that, you have to understand how Edwards handled the money in question. As I said earlier, Edwards is "guilty" of having the affair, father the child, and taking money to keep the whole thing private. But none of those things is illegal, unless they involve campaign funds.

In this particular case, I would not bet on Edwards being found not guilty. In fact, I'd bet the opposite. But I wouldn't mortgage my house and cash out my 401k to do so. I'd have to be certain of a conviction in order to do that, and I'm not as prescient as you seem to be.

[you with the face]

In this particular case, I would not bet on Edwards being found not guilty. In fact, I'd bet the opposite. But I wouldn't mortgage my house and cash out my 401k to do so. I'd have to be certain of a conviction in order to do that, and I'm not as prescient as you seem to be.

You'd only have a point if I said he'd be found guilty.

[elucidator]

...The big question is -- what do they mean under the law?...

No, that's your "big question". But forget all that, whats this about you with the face and Andrew Dice Clay?

[John Mace]

How about all y'all talking about the Treyvon/Zimmerman case TAKE IT TO ONE OF THE FIVE THOUSAND THREADS ALREADY DISCUSSING IT?
That's so 2 hours ago. We've moved on to John Edwards. :)

You'd only have a point if I said he'd be found guilty.

Perhaps prescient is the wrong word then. I don't have mind reading abilities on par with you, as I don't know what went through the minds of the deceased people who gave him the money.

[you with the face]

I don't have mind reading abilities on par with you, as I don't know what went through the minds of the deceased people who gave him the money.

But you're willing to bet money Zimmerman walks even though you know nothing about the State's evidence. So I have to wonder why Edwards causes your gift for clairvoyance to shut down.

[John Mace]

But you're willing to bet money Zimmerman walks even though you know nothing about the State's evidence. So I have to wonder why Edwards causes your gift for clairvoyance to shut down.

If I were clairvoyant, I wouldn't be citing odds. And we all know more than "nothing" about the State's evidence.

[Ibn Warraq]

Well, he was suspended (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html) for calling Obama a "dick" so I don't think he's a big fan of the president.

In 2008, he "decried the Disgusting’ Pro-Obama Media Bias in Election Coverage (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/halperin-decrie/)"

Does that sound "center-left" to you? He does not work for Fox News, so I guess in some people's books that alone makes him a de facto raving pinko communist.

Except he did the same in 2004. He wrote a fairly infamous memo that was blasted by conservatives as an example of media bias when he attacked the media for "false equivalence" when covering Bush and Kerry arguing that Kerry may have made distortions but that they weren't central to his attempt to win but that the media's desire to appear "impartial" played into Bush's hands and did the country a disservice.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/09/20041009_195805_mh.htm
Anyway, claiming Obama is "a dick" and complaining that the media fawned all over Obama in 2008 hardly marks one as a conservative.

To give an obvious example, lots of Hillary Clinton supporters felt the media coverage of the Democratic nomination was horribly biased.

I don't think anyone would consider Tina Fey a conservative.

http://www.theutubeblog.net/my_weblog/2008/02/barack-obama-hi.html

[Bricker]

But forget all that, whats this about you with the face and Andrew Dice Clay?

I've said too much already.

[you with the face]

If I were clairvoyant, I wouldn't be citing odds.

You didn't cite any odds. You said your money is on a not guilty verdict for Zimmerman. This, even though the guy ain't even had his pre-trial hearing yet, let alone gone to trial. This, even though you don't even know what evidence the State has of probable cause, let alone the evidence they'll be using to secure a conviction.

Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you're fooling with that nonsense is yourself.

[XT]

Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you're fooling with that nonsense is yourself.

You do see the irony inherent in this statement, right? :p

-XT

[John Mace]

You didn't cite any odds. You said your money is on a not guilty verdict for Zimmerman. This, even though the guy ain't even had his pre-trial hearing yet, let alone gone to trial. This, even though you don't even know what evidence the State has of probable cause, let alone the evidence they'll be using to secure a conviction.

Just admit you have your own biases, John. Just like anyone else. Same with Bricker. Same with anyone who tries to pass themselves off as more objective than thou. The only one you're fooling with that nonsense is yourself.

We all have biases. But my particular biases would lead me to the opposite conclusion if I were following them. I am pretty "anti-gun", if you don't know that. In fact, I've even proposed that the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=648581). I would be happy to see much more restrictive gun laws and much harsher punishments for using a gun.

So, what biases are clouding my views here?

[you with the face]

You do see the irony inherent in this statement, right? :p

-XT

Point out the irony please. I've never said I don't have my biases.

[XT]

As far as I know, John didn't say he had no bias either. He's attempted to explain to you why he THINKS the ZM case will be thrown out, and your disagreement seems to stem almost completely from YOUR bias...at least that's my impression on skimming this hijack portion of the thread anyway. So...the irony level is pretty high from where I'm sitting. Not off the scale, as this is the Straight Dope, but certainly enough to get a nice tan.

-XT

[you with the face]

So, what biases are clouding my views here?

You never answered my earlier question, so I'll repost it.

Is it possible, in your view, to simply look at available evidence and draw conclusions from it without necessarily being blinded by bias?

I think it's very possible to look at what we know about Zimmerman's case and reach conclusions about what happened without being blinded by basis. There's nothing so exceptional about this case that should make us turn off our brains and declare it all a mystery.

Merely having a bias doesn't mean you'll be blinded. Believe it or not, it's possible to be anti-gun and believe that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Just like it's possible for flaming liberals from SC to believe that Edwards acted illegally. Just like its possible to be an LA cop and think that the Rodney King verdict was unjust.

I know, I know, this is crazy talk. It only seems that way if you refuse to accept that people can draw these conclusions using rational thought processes as opposed to being "blinded by bias".

To answer your question: My point all along is not that you are blinded by bias. It's that you shouldn't be accusing BobLibDem of being blinded on the grounds that you have. You are just as confident in your own position of rightness as he is. If he's a fool, then so are you.

[XT]

As for the OP, Bricker is not, IMHO, a Jackass Extraordinaire. It takes years of refinement plus a vast natural talent to reach the pinnacle of Jackassery, and, sadly, Bricker just doesn't have the talent for it nor the drive to reach the top. Only a select few can attain such heights.

-XT

[John Mace]

You never answered my earlier question, so I'll repost it.
Yes, it possible. I think a lot of people can do that.



I think it's very possible to look at what we know about Zimmerman's case and reach conclusions about what happened without being blinded by basis. There's nothing so exceptional about this case that should make us turn off our brains and declare it all a mystery.

Merely having a bias doesn't mean you'll be blinded. Believe it or not, it's possible to be anti-gun and believe that Zimmerman acted lawfully. Just like it's possible for flaming liberals from SC to believe that Edwards acted illegally. Just like its possible to be an LA cop and think that the Rodney King verdict was unjust.

I know, I know, this is crazy talk. It only seems that way if you refuse to accept that people can draw these conclusions using rational thought processes as opposed to being "blinded by bias".

To answer your question: My point all along is not that you are blinded by bias. It's that you shouldn't be accusing BobLibDem of being blinded on the grounds that you have. You are just as confident in your own position of rightness as he is. If he's a fool, then so are you.

But that was exactly the point I was making in my response to Bob posting this:

Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda.
He's knocking Bricker because he (Bricker) can see an angle where Zimmerman might not be guilty. He can't accept that Bricker is just giving straight up legal advice because he's convinced anyone who defends Zimmerman must be blinded by an "extreme right wing agenda". I'm saying anyone who thinks that is blinded by his own bias. That's bullshit of the highest order.

[you with the face]

John, you wrote this:

I hate to tell you this, Bob, but if you think Zimmerman is guilty, then it's your political bias that is blinding you from the facts in the case.

(bolding mine)

The condescending objective-than-thou attitude that I've been railing about? It's right here.

[XT]

Well, you kind of have to quote the whole thing to get the full effect:

I hate to tell you this, Bob, but if you think Zimmerman is guilty, then it's your political bias that is blinding you from the facts in the case. He may well be guilty, but the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult job proving that. My money would be on a jury acquitting Zimmerman.

Yes, he shot the kid. But that's not the question before the court. The question before the court is whether or not he broke the law. That's for a jury to decide. And one thing about Bricker, is that if the jury finds him guilty, he won't say he isn't. Only the jury can decide that.

And you have to put it in the context of what he was responding to from Bob:

Bullshit. We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there's a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda. Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me. He's just a condescending little douche with a political compass that points in the wrong direction.

It's pretty obvious which of these positions is partisan based, and which is more thoughtful...at least to my completely unbiased and non-partisan view anyway. :p

-XT

[John Mace]

John, you wrote this:



(bolding mine)

The condescending objective-than-thou attitude that I've been railing about? It's right here.

Bob does think Zimmerman is guilty. To the point where he thinks only someone with an "extreme right wing" bias would defend him. That's absurd.

If me calling him on that is "condescending", then so be it. I have no problem being condescending when I think it's appropriate.

[elucidator]

And, as everyone knows, only non-partisan views are truly objective and free from bias. Which is probably why so many people are eager to present themselves as non-partisan. There are those, of course, who dispute this received wisdom, but they are partisan, and can be safely ignored, as their opinions are clouded by biases.

Once one attains this Olympic perfection of unbiased non-partisan objectivity, it becomes much easier to ascertain which opinions are biased and partisan: they are different from one's own.

[XT]

And, as everyone knows, only non-partisan views are truly objective and free from bias. Which is probably why so many people are eager to present themselves as non-partisan. There are those, of course, who dispute this received wisdom, but they are partisan, and can be safely ignored, as their opinions are clouded by biases.

Exactly! Glad we are on the same page there, old boy! As with being a Jackass Extraordinaire, one has to be both born with the talent AND work at it ceaselessly in order to develop it to it's full potential. :p

Once one attains this Olympic perfection of unbiased non-partisan objectivity, it becomes much easier to ascertain which opinions are biased and partisan: they are different from one's own.

A cut above, no doubt. The only problem I've found is the nose bleeds from sitting at those Olympian heights. The perfection part though just comes naturally.

-XT

[Euphonious Polemic]

There are two meanings of the word "guilty" at play here. One is more colloquial, and is used in a non-criminal law sense. "That guy sure is guilty". "I think he's guilty as hell"

The other meaning is a criminal law one. "He will be found guilty of the charges." "He will not be found guilty because no crime can be proven in court."

It's amusing that the parties cannot figure this out. I can see it now:

"I think that dog took my burger. Look at him - he looks guilty as hell."

"No, you're wrong. The dog cannot be guilty because as an animal he cannot be charged, tried and convicted in court as he lacks the requisite intent. Also he's not a human. Therefore you cannot call him guilty."

[Scumpup]

As for the OP, Bricker is not, IMHO, a Jackass Extraordinaire. It takes years of refinement plus a vast natural talent to reach the pinnacle of Jackassery, and, sadly, Bricker just doesn't have the talent for it nor the drive to reach the top. Only a select few can attain such heights.

-XT

The boy's got heart, though. Plenty of heart.

[John Mace]

There are two meanings of the word "guilty" at play here. One is more colloquial, and is used in a non-criminal law sense. "That guy sure is guilty". "I think he's guilty as hell"

The other meaning is a criminal law one. "He will be found guilty of the charges." "He will not be found guilty because no crime can be proven in court."

It's amusing that the parties cannot figure this out. I can see it now:

"I think that dog took my burger. Look at him - he looks guilty as hell."

"No, you're wrong. The dog cannot be guilty because as an animal he cannot be charged, tried and convicted in court as he lacks the requisite intent. Also he's not a human. Therefore you cannot call him guilty."

I think most of us area aware of that. That's not at the core of disagreement, though.

[Mtgman]

We're talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client.Here's his most fully-formed statement on this subject. Taken from a full thread started to clarify his original statement ('http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=573733") where no less than two prosecutors and about three other defense attorneys weighed in saying that having spent time as a PD and never having had an innocent client was entirely plausible.I have had clients that I thought were probably or possibly factually innocent of the top count of the indictment, but almost certainly guilty of one of the many lesser-includeds involved. That is, I have taken clients to trial when the prosecution overcharged the case, which they often did to try to force a plea.

But newborn innocent? Nope.Depending on how long he was a PD, the police in his area, and the DA, I have no doubt this could very well be true. What do you suppose the percentage of false arrests are? Subtract the number which are never prosecuted. Subtract the number which have the personal resources to afford their own attorney(as opposed to having a PD appointed).

The Innocence Project has identified 289 cases of wrongful convictions in cases dating back about thirty years. The ratio of convictions versus exonerations is enormous and it's why exonerations make the news. While any miscarriage of justice is a terrible thing, it's not hard for me to believe they're rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short.

One of my best friends is a part-time PD(country lawyer, does a bit of everything) and I just sent him this same question. He said "Maybe 1-2% actually innocent, but maybe 15-20% are not as guilty as the DA tries to say." A full-time PD may have 500 cases a year, which would be 5-10 with my friend's estimate. Any department big enough to have that kind of caseload would have more than one PD though, so it's possible someone else got the innocent ones in the batches for the time Bricker was a PD.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Really Not All That Bright]

There are two meanings of the word "guilty" at play here. One is more colloquial, and is used in a non-criminal law sense. "That guy sure is guilty". "I think he's guilty as hell"

The other meaning is a criminal law one. "He will be found guilty of the charges." "He will not be found guilty because no crime can be proven in court."

It's amusing that the parties cannot figure this out. I can see it now:

"I think that dog took my burger. Look at him - he looks guilty as hell."

"No, you're wrong. The dog cannot be guilty because as an animal he cannot be charged, tried and convicted in court as he lacks the requisite intent. Also he's not a human. Therefore you cannot call him guilty."
It's not amusing. It just reflects differing mindsets. Lots of people think OJ is objectively guilty of murder, even though he was exonerated.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

they're rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short.

One of my best friends is a part-time PD(country lawyer, does a bit of everything) and I just sent him this same question. He said "Maybe 1-2% actually innocent, but maybe 15-20% are not as guilty as the DA tries to say." A full-time PD may have 500 cases a year, which would be 5-10 with my friend's estimate. Any department big enough to have that kind of caseload would have more than one PD though, so it's possible someone else got the innocent ones in the batches for the time Bricker was a PD.

Enjoy,
Steven



This is a foolish argument, in that it undermines itself. If you're positing that Bricker could be telling the truth here IF he has a sufficiently smaller number of clients as a PD, then you're arguing that he served as a PD too briefly to speak authoritatively on the subject of clients' innocence. Either way, his anecdotal testimony is just that.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I think most of us area aware of that. That's not at the core of disagreement, though.
I dunno--I kind of think it might be. Look at ywtf saying "You'd only have a point if I said he'd be found guilty." It seems clear she's making a distinction between two things:

1) Doing the wrong thing; and
2) After going through a trial, being convicted of doing an illegal thing.

There's a third category--doing an illegal thing--but I think ywtf (and maybe you, John) has been going in and out of using that meaning.

If it's really important what folks think in any of these cases, it might be helpful to declare which meaning you're using. For example:

-I think John Edwards is guilty of the moral failing of using campaign money for personal ends.
-I suspect John Edwards acted illegally when he used those monies for personal ends.
-I have no idea whether John Edwards will be found guilty in a court of law for the crime of using those monies for personal ends.

[John Mace]

I dunno--I kind of think it might be. Look at ywtf saying "You'd only have a point if I said he'd be found guilty." It seems clear she's making a distinction between two things:

1) Doing the wrong thing; and
2) After going through a trial, being convicted of doing an illegal thing.

There's a third category--doing an illegal thing--but I think ywtf (and maybe you, John) has been going in and out of using that meaning.

If it's really important what folks think in any of these cases, it might be helpful to declare which meaning you're using. For example:

-I think John Edwards is guilty of the moral failing of using campaign money for personal ends.
-I suspect John Edwards acted illegally when he used those monies for personal ends.
-I have no idea whether John Edwards will be found guilty in a court of law for the crime of using those monies for personal ends.

I didn't mean to imply that it was completely irrelevant. But it's not at the core of the disagreement, which is what I said. The core question is whether people are stepping back and looking at things objectively (or at least trying to do so), or are they seeing it only through the lens of their political beliefs.

[Mtgman]

This is a foolish argument, in that it undermines itself. If you're positing that Bricker could be telling the truth here IF he has a sufficiently smaller number of clients as a PD, then you're arguing that he served as a PD too briefly to speak authoritatively on the subject of clients' innocence. Either way, his anecdotal testimony is just that.Bricker's statement was a personal anecdote. It was not an assertion about the overall rates of innocents in the justice system, only those he personally served as a PD.

I'm not advancing Bricker's post as evidence for the assertion there are no innocents being prosecuted. As far as I can tell that's not even one of the propositions being discussed. I'm defending its plausibility as an accurate statement of fact as to his personal experience. BobLibDem was using it to impeach Bricker's judgment by implying he is incapable of seeing past his biases to accurately determine innocence or guilt. If Bricker believed had never had an innocent client as a PD it's because he was incapable of setting aside his biases and seeing the innocence of his clients. The plausibility of Bricker having never actually had any innocent clients, which is roughly proportional to his length of employment as a PD, is relevant to that discussion.

All that having been said, it's a long way off the mark for the original post, which was expressing anger at Bricker's superciliousness and nitpicking. I would agree he's supercilious and nitpicky. I just don't agree that "I never had an innocent client" is clear evidence of his inability to see past his biases.

Enjoy,
Steven

[you with the face]

The core question is whether people are stepping back and looking at things objectively (or at least trying to do so), or are they seeing it only through the lens of their political beliefs.

You forgot a third faction: Those who wrongly appoint themselves as the arbiters who is being objective and who is not.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The Innocence Project has identified 289 cases of wrongful convictions in cases dating back about thirty years. The ratio of convictions versus exonerations is enormous and it's why exonerations make the news. While any miscarriage of justice is a terrible thing, it's not hard for me to believe they're rare enough that a particular PD might not have been exposed to one in his time as a PD, especially if it was short.I agree with your general point, but this specific comparison is not appropriate. Bricker was not talking about post-conviction exonerations. Even if we grant that convictions of innocent people are extremely rare, that does not mean that innocent defendents are extremely rare. There could be a lot of innocent defendents who are found innocent.

[elucidator]

You forgot a third faction: Those who wrongly appoint themselves as the arbiters who is being objective and who is not.

Which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons.

[you with the face]

which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons.

four legs good, two legs bad.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Which is why it is so important that those decisions be made by non-partisan persons.

Have you made a joke about John Mace and non-partisanship? I’m just not sure if you’ve made any jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship, so you’ll have to make some more, just in case someone hasn’t seen one of your jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship. Wouldn’t want anyone not to realize how clever you are. Repetition is the soul of wit, you know.

[Mtgman]

I agree with your general point, but this specific comparison is not appropriate. Bricker was not talking about post-conviction exonerations. Even if we grant that convictions of innocent people are extremely rare, that does not mean that innocent defendents are extremely rare. There could be a lot of innocent defendents who are found innocent.
I was looking for a number that doesn't really exist and exonerations was the closest. In general the sequence goes like this, from most common to least common.

Some small subset of Arrests are False Arrests
Some small subset of Prosecutions are Wrongful Prosecutions
Some small subset of Convictions are Wrongful Convictions
Some, probably small, subset of Wrongful Convictions result in Exoneration

Bricker was making an assertion about wrongful prosecutions being very rare, actually nonexistant, in his personal experience as a Public Defender.

I thought about looking at acquittals, but there is similar hierarchy of ways someone could be factually guilty but still be acquitted there.

Acquittals where the prosecution fails to prove its case(usually with significant help from defense counsel) - unknowable percentage
Acquittals where bad behavior didn't fit the strict construction of the statute - unknowable percentage
Acquittals dependent on technicalities/procedural errors - possibly knowable
Some tiny number of jury nullifications - unknowable percentage

The number I'm looking for doesn't really exist, but it would be some subset of wrongful prosecutions. The closest thing I could come up with was to go all the way through to the other side of the process and look at exonerations. Because if someone was exonerated it means they were, at one point, falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted.

Then of course there are the falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted which make up 99.999% of the incarcerated, at least if you believe the inmates.

Enjoy,
Steven

[elucidator]

Have you made a joke about John Mace and non-partisanship? I’m just not sure if you’ve made any jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship, so you’ll have to make some more, just in case someone hasn’t seen one of your jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship. Wouldn’t want anyone not to realize how clever you are. Repetition is the soul of wit, you know.

You don't have to read none of it. Just as soon you didn't, all the same to you.

[John Mace]

One old dog to another: sometimes you really should learn some new tricks.

[Lobohan]

One old dog to another: sometimes you really should learn some new tricks.Mote, beam, etc.

[ElvisL1ves]

So we're agreed that John Mace is a jackass extraordinaire too? Very well then.

[John Mace]

So we're agreed that John Mace is a jackass extraordinaire too? Very well then.

Let's not be too hasty. I think we should clarify the various levels before we start giving out awards. I wouldn't want to end up too man levels below the top.

[elucidator]

Didn't even mention your name, John. Have a hard time convicting on even so small a charge as petty snark with evidence like that. Therefore, I'm not guilty.

(Let the record show that the respondent is batting big, brown, innocent eyes.)

[elucidator]

Let's not be too hasty. I think we should clarify the various levels before we start giving out awards. I wouldn't want to end up too man levels below the top.

Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers.

[ElvisL1ves]

And that's because you only have one schtick, the Libertarian Nonparticipant Superiority Dance. Which isn't even original.

[XT]

Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers.

Huh. And here I thought it was measured in parts per 'luci. 720 milli-'lucies would be a lethal dose...that's why they generally use micro- or even nano-'lucies. Elvis, of course, would be something on the order of 250 milli-'lucies, making him about a quarter of the master on the annoyance and tinfoil/ankle biting scale. Definitely lethal, though thankfully rare...

-XT

[John Mace]

Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers.

We may have killed the thread by not being nasty enough to each other. Such is life.

[Paranoid Randroid]

And that's because you only have one schtick, the Libertarian Nonparticipant Superiority Dance. Which isn't even original.

Is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) Shodan, except Shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

Ugh. Now I feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, I’d take a thousand elucidators, John Maces, and Brickers before even consenting to think about you again.

[Really Not All That Bright]

How is it that Bricker makes everyone hate everyone else*? He's a model of civility. You'd think he'd have the opposite effect.

*except me. Everyone loves me.

[ElvisL1ves]

I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts.Says a paranoid Randroid. :p

[septimus]

Bumping the thread just to clarify that Bricker is a Pretentious Blowhard as well as a Jackass Extraordinaire.

And, talking to him is like talking to ... well, a Brick wall.

In a recent thread he sobered up long enough to pull out the usual Right-wing whine:
"Some of you rationalists often behave despicably just as us hypocrite assholes do."

I challenged him to give an example:
So let's make a fair comparison then.

Show us a comment by a Democratic Congressman that is as insolent toward GWB as Congressman Coffman's was toward Obama. Or a verbal apology as asinine as that in the video which Shodan has trouble understanding (or dares not to view).

No response from the jackass of course. Never mind, he's knows his target audience has a very short attention span so he'll be back in a few days making the same unsubstantiated charges.

[Terr]

I challenged him to give an example:
Congressman Peter Stark, saying that Bush was sending young Americans to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

[Bricker]

No response from the jackass of course. Never mind, he's knows his target audience has a very short attention span so he'll be back in a few days making the same unsubstantiated charges.

how much time passed between your challenge and my response?

And of that number of hours, how many of them are, for people on the East Coast, typically considered sleeping hours?

Is this criticism remotely fair?

[Bryan Ekers]

Is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) Shodan, except Shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

Ask him where the 9/11 perps were safely based. That's always good for a few laughs.

[FuriousGeorge]

is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and i can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that i can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) shodan, except shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

Ugh. Now i feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, i’d take a thousand elucidators, john maces, and brickers before even consenting to think about you again.

+10,000

[Shodan]

Shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.

I'm slipping.

Regards,
Shodan

[MsWhatsit]

I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours.

You must have missed the cardboard paper-towel tube thing.

[FinnAgain]

Ugh. Now I feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, I’d take a thousand elucidators, John Maces, and Brickers before even consenting to think about you again.

Plus he's at Gonzomax levels of mental retardation.