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.

Originally Posted by Bricker

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]

Originally Posted by Covered_In_Bees!

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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]

Originally Posted by Leaper

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.

Originally Posted by Nzinga, Seated

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST MARK HALPERIN

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]

Originally Posted by furt

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

Oh Fa-pucking-lease.

[Nzinga, Seated]

Originally Posted by Shayna

...***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]

Originally Posted by furt

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

Well, he was suspended 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"

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 as one of their Wankers of the Decade.

Also Alex Pareene has named him the #2 media hack in 2010, and #1 in 2011.

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]

Originally Posted by Nzinga, Seated

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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.

[Moderating]
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.
[/Moderating]

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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.

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

Still no warning issued.
[/Moderating]

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Miller

vituperation

That word a day calendar is doing it's job.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by Miller

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

Still no warning issued.
[/Moderating]

Stupid rule.

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Covered_In_Bees!

Bricker being Pitted? Been three months already?

20 times now in 10 years, so 6 month average.

[Crazyhorse]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

20 times now in 10 years, 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 nor Jill Klausen 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Neither Mark Halperin nor Jill Klausen 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]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Neither Mark Halperin nor Jill Klausen 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]

Originally Posted by Bricker

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

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

That's an understatement.

Originally Posted by Lobohan

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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Shayna appears to be over-reacting.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Shayna

"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/t...sumers_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 ...

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

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 ...

Originally Posted by Shayna

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

...

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:

Originally Posted by Bricker

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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

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

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

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

Ask Bricker.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by John Mace

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.

Originally Posted by Kimstu

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

LOL

Originally Posted by John Mace

Ask Bricker.

Not if my life depended on it.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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]

Originally Posted by Lasciel

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 my ass.

Originally Posted by John Mace

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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]

Originally Posted by Shayna

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.

Originally Posted by Bricker

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.