Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Plus he's at Gonzomax levels of mental retardation.

I don't know - does he understand the concept of mortgage interest?

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It's not amusing. It just reflects differing mindsets. Lots of people think OJ is objectively guilty of murder, even though he was exonerated.

I think you meant acquitted, not exonerated.

[Lochdale]

I think Bricker is one of the best posters on this forum. Don't always agree with him but rate him. The OP seems unbalanced.

[tomndebb]

In regards to the passing comments on Public Defenders and attitudes toward the persons they defend, I offer, (without drawing any conclusions regarding posters in this thread), the following link to a recent NPR story:

Exoneration List Shows Patterns In False Convictions

Regarding Samuel Gross, the founder of the group compiling the list of persons convicted and later exonerated:

CORNISH: Now, I read in your biography that you were once a criminal defense attorney in San Francisco.

GROSS: That's right. Yeah.

CORNISH: And it made me wonder sort of how you felt looking at this data.

GROSS: Well, as a criminal defense attorney, like most criminal defense attorneys, I believed that everybody I represented was guilty. Criminal defense attorneys, like almost everybody in the criminal justice system, know that the vast majority of people who are arrested and prosecuted are guilty and many of us then, and probably some now, made the mistake that some people still make, which is mistaking what usually happens and thinking that it always happens, but that's not true.

Most people who are arrested and convicted are certainly guilty, but we have a steady trickle, perhaps a small stream, of errors and it would be wise of us and just of us to do everything possible to minimize that.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

[Bricker]'s a model of civility.

I don't understand people who say this. This entire pit thread was because he was not being civil. He was being passive aggressive. As I said in thread, if he really had a problem with what Shayna's logic, why didn't he offer actual arguments to rebut what she said?

What he did was the classic personal attack without violating the rules. Now while I think the best response is usually in thread, this forum does exist for when people get so mad they can't calm down enough to actually address attacks calmly.

What relevance are his previous responses? If anything, it makes it worse, because we know he's not in the habit of these sorts of things. When someone is usually nice, then even the slightest attack comes off as a grave insult. Just like, if someone is usually a jerk, a slight compliment comes off as gushing.

[BigT]

I also don't see how it's fair to have someone arguing for someone who believes he is guilty, against someone else who also believes he is guilty. Obviously, your bias towards guilt is going to screw them over.

You can't even use the defense that the majority of said people are guilty. You don't know that, seeing as all those trials are biased by not having someone who actually believes the accused is innocent.

It also makes me wonder about those people who seem to think that one's opinion should agree with the court, that all people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Bricker, along with tom's quote above, show that not even lawyers abide by that ethic.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by 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:


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.

Looks to me like you are the jackass of that exchange. To mix metaphors, Bricker batted your challenge right out of the park (apparently with some help from Terr) and you promptly tried to move the goalposts on him.

[Baal Houtham]

Originally Posted by BigT

I also don't see how it's fair to have someone arguing for someone who believes he is guilty, against someone else who also believes he is guilty.

So, if someone is caught standing above a body while holding a bloody knife and laughing, with the dead guy's wallet and diamond ring in their pocket -- the court should have to find a lawyer for Mr. Knifey who will swear under oath that he doesn't think that he is guilty? (And maybe take a polygraph just to be extra cautious.)

And yeah, Bricker was inappropriately snarky to the OP, but Bricker gets 10 tons of shit for every teaspoon he offers in return. He turns his cheek so often he should be falling down dizzy.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigT

. As I said in thread, if he really had a problem with what Shayna's logic, why didn't he offer actual arguments to rebut what she said?

Of course, I did. My ire was drawn by Shayna's absolutely uncritical cheer leading, in which she appears to quote supporting information without a critical or analytical glance, and subject disagreeable conclusions to a microscope of scrutiny -- not a way to fight ignorance. In the subject thread, she credulously repeated the claim that money is returned to the pockets of the people who are insured, by law. That's of course not a true claim. So I said(in effect) two things: that her claim wasn't true, and that her overwhelming pro-Obama stance leads her to poorly analyze the claims she touts.

Both of those are legitimate GD observations.

What relevance are his previous responses? If anything, it makes it worse, because we know he's not in the habit of these sorts of things. When someone is usually nice, then even the slightest attack comes off as a grave insult. Just like, if someone is usually a jerk, a slight compliment comes off as gushing.

Huh. This system does not seem wise.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BigT

I also don't see how it's fair to have someone arguing for someone who believes he is guilty, against someone else who also believes he is guilty. Obviously, your bias towards guilt is going to screw them over.

You can't even use the defense that the majority of said people are guilty. You don't know that, seeing as all those trials are biased by not having someone who actually believes the accused is innocent.

It also makes me wonder about those people who seem to think that one's opinion should agree with the court, that all people should be assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Bricker, along with tom's quote above, show that not even lawyers abide by that ethic.

A lawyer who is doing his job doesn't care at all whether his client is actually innocent. My job was to zealously advocate for my client's interest. That includes forcing the Commonwealth to its burden of proof. I strongly believed that you, the state, don't get to send someone to jail merely because he's guilty. You have to be able to PROVE that guilt, and not just prove it's probable, or likely, or even with clear and convincing evidence. No, you need to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. You need to eliminate all reasonable scenarios except guilt.

THAT is what I worked for, and I had an excellent win/loss record when I did it.

[Shayna]

Holy shit, is this thing still going on? I've been luxuriating in the turquoise waters of the Turks & Caicos Islands in the Caribbean for the past week. I thought for sure this horse would be dead by now. Y'all sure do know how to keep the pot boiling, don't you.

Should I bother getting back up to speed? Nah. I'm too happy and relaxed. Carry on.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Shayna

Holy shit, is this thing still going on? I've been luxuriating in the turquoise waters of the Turks & Caicos Islands in the Caribbean for the past week. I thought for sure this horse would be dead by now. Y'all sure do know how to keep the pot boiling, don't you.

Should I bother getting back up to speed? Nah. I'm too happy and relaxed. Carry on.

That's a good thing since you started off bat shit crazy and unbalanced. I hope you received some mental health services while you were in the Caribbean.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Shayna

Holy shit, is this thing still going on? I've been luxuriating in the turquoise waters of the Turks & Caicos Islands in the Caribbean for the past week. I thought for sure this horse would be dead by now. Y'all sure do know how to keep the pot boiling, don't you.

When you bump it 31 hours after the last post, I think the appropriate saying about the pot also involves the kettle.

[BrainGlutton]

Bricker's latest dishonest bullshit.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Bricker's latest dishonest bullshit.

What's dishonest about it?

[ElvisL1ves]

This time he admitted trolling (post 27). Can't you fucking read for content?

[boytyperanma]

I thought Brickers pitting schedule was every three months, this revival is early.

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

This time he admitted trolling (post 27). Can't you fucking read for content?

This was 'admitted trolling" to you? Or am I having a whoosh moment?

For the moment, I just want to see where the discussion goes. My opinions sometimes change as a result of reading reasoning here. I started out thinking that the only difference between my hypo and the immigration business was the very dangerous, "Well, we like these results but don't like those," which is, in my view, a really poor baseline principle.

But then someone pointed out that one law's text actually mentions discretionary enforcement and the other's does not. To me, that's a much more solid base upon which to rest a distinction.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

This was 'admitted trolling" to you? Or am I having a whoosh moment?

No. The explanation is that ElvisL1ves is an idiot.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

This time he admitted trolling (post 27). Can't you fucking read for content?

He admitted to attempting to draw a connection between his hypothetical and Obama's decision to not deport certain people. Then, when it was pointed out that there was an important distinction between the two which he was missing, he changed his mind.

Which part of that was trolling?

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

This was 'admitted trolling" to you? Or am I having a whoosh moment?

Whoosh. Unless you don't think that posting something solely in the hopes of getting a reaction, or springing a gotcha, not in the interest of actually discussing a topic, counts as trolling. Note that at no time did Bricker ever offer a view of his own on the topic he purported to be interested in. In Post 27, he actually acknowledged that he was trying yet again for a "Look at the liberal hypocrisy!" moments that have become his sole purpose for being on this board at all.

If you want to call that something other than trolling, what do you propose instead?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Note that at no time did Bricker ever offer a view of his own on the topic he purported to be interested in.

Does he ever? I can't remember a thread he's started stating his own opinion in the OP

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Does he ever? I can't remember a thread he's started stating his own opinion in the OP

He seemed pretty happy the SEIU lost their SCOTUS case. I think he even said "yippee."

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Does he ever? I can't remember a thread he's started stating his own opinion in the OP

He will on the now-rare occasions when he's not actually going for a juvenile gotcha. This was not one, nor was it atypical.

The multiple people who've chided him lately along the lines of "You're better than this" are unfortunately arguing against the evidence.

[John Mace]

I think it's a childish habit and if it's not trolling, it skates very close to the line. If we take the many times he's started threads like this, I think a good case could be made for trolling. Anyone want to indict and prosecute?

[boytyperanma]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think it's a childish habit and if it's not trolling, it skates very close to the line. If we take the many times he's started threads like this, I think a good case could be made for trolling. Anyone want to indict and prosecute?

Against the great Bricker? Somehow I see a 30 pages thread on the definition of trolling.

It'd be a total waste of the prosecutors time, stick indicting the easily identifiable trolls imho.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

He will on the now-rare occasions when he's not actually going for a juvenile gotcha.

Which, I should state, are the occasions when he's going for a juvenile neener-neener instead.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Does he ever? I can't remember a thread he's started stating his own opinion in the OP

Here are some reminders:

Originally Posted by Bricker

From here: I see two interesting propositions. One is that if there is a liberal media, it was absent or clueless during the coverage of this subject.

Two is that liberal talk show hosts devoted nearly twice as much time to discussing the issue as their conservative counterparts, and their coverage was not uniformly positive. (I infer that the conservatives' coverage was more or less uniformly negative).
.
.
.
I tend to agree with the conclusion, but I am not sure that's what the Pew study says. Cillizza buttresses the claim with Post polling data.

Originally Posted by Bricker

And so, liberals to the rescue. At a cost of some $900,000, Philadelpha inner city corner stores are being incentivized to carry fresh fruits and vegetables. As the Washington Post explains:
.
.
.
[b]I don't want my government to have that attitude./b]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Just what this country needs.

The DC Circuit recently pondered the case of Antoine Jones. Jones, who owned a night club in Washington DC, had a GPS device affixed secretly to his car by police. Over the course of a month, police were able to show that he ended up in the same places as his alleged conspirators.
.
.
.
Now, this kind of analysis makes sense if you're talking about, say, classified information. But it's not what the Fourth Amendment says.

Is it?

Originally Posted by Bricker

Paul Krugman's conscience is shocked by the fact that Politifact, known for their ratings of various statements by politicians from True to Half True to False to Pants-on-Fire, has selected as their "Lie of the Year," the Democrat's claim that seniors would have to pay $12,500 more for health care "because Republicans voted to end Medicare."
.
.
.
My own opinion is that Krugman privately thought of Politifact as an ally, and is upset to see his ally attacking friendly forces. But that's pure speculation on my part. What's undenaible is that Krugman, along with Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and The New Republic clearly believe Politifact's analysis should never have been published. Whether they think this because they believe it to be flawed, or simply strategically unfriendly, is for another day. For now: Is Politifact correct to call the left's collection of claims about Ryan's plan a lie? A big lie?

Originally Posted by Bricker

So says the California Court of Appeals, as reported by FourthAmendment.com.
.
.
.
Bad ruling, in my view.

Originally Posted by Bricker

From this article:



I am against this system, and I rather suspect there will be at least some support for this scheme here.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Story here.



I support this prosecution, and I only would add that I don't understand why Monsignor Murphy was not also indicted.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Which prompted one blogger to quip, "The White House is still “very much committed” to greenhouse gas reductions the way NBC was 'Committed to Keeping Conan O’Brien' on the network in January 2010. Too harsh? Just wait and see."
.
.
.
Is this prediction anything more than a disappointed "green" fretting? I don't think so, but I'm willing to be shown where I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Via YouTube, Steny Hoyer:

In my view, of course, Congressman Hoyer's remarks are ... well... unremarkable. His use of a metaphor is obvious. He's not remotely suggesting anyone is using, or should use, actual firearms. He's saying that House Republicans are risking the safety of the nation's economy in an effort to injure the President's political standing and electibility.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by John Mace

I think it's a childish habit and if it's not trolling, it skates very close to the line. If we take the many times he's started threads like this, I think a good case could be made for trolling. Anyone want to indict and prosecute?

I am not understanding what you object to. The clear purpose of that hypo was to ask whether the principle used by the President to nullify the effects of a part of immigration law could be applied elsewhere.

How is that anything close to trolling?

When Justice Kennedy asks during oral argument if the Commerce Clause means that the government could ban broccoli, is he trolling? Of course not: he's crafting a hypothetical that explores the limits and natural consequences of a given proposition.

I am absolutely baffled, and disturbed, by your reaction. There are a bunch of idiots here who simply attack anything I say. Their opinions are useless.

You don't fall into that category at all, and I'm genuinely disturbed to see this reaction from you.

[xenophon41]

Bricker, speaking as someone who's not infrequently on the opposite side of a given issue from you, I agree you're not shy about expressing your point of view in your OP's, although you are quite fond of coyness in your argumentative structures. (By which I mean you're no stranger to the rhetorical "gotcha" device.)

But IMHO it would behoove you, I think, to remember late, unlamented SDMB poster december, and the 'last straw' which precipitated his/her banishment. I agree with John Mace that you're skating quite close to the same line.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I am not understanding what you object to. The clear purpose of that hypo was to ask whether the principle used by the President to nullify the effects of a part of immigration law could be applied elsewhere.

How is that anything close to trolling?

For me, it has something to do with expectations of particular posters. You are well known around here not only as a lawyer, but as someone who is well versed in constitutional issues, who often responds to non-legal arguments with legal answers, and who is perfectly happy to bring the hammer down on people who post opinions about the law without familiarizing themselves with the law in question. For all these reasons, i expect more from you in a law-related hypothetical than i do of many other people.

Is that fair? Maybe; maybe not. But tough shit, because that's how it is.

In the thread about Presidential authority, after a bunch of people had responded to the thread, and after John Mace had asked you to weigh in with your own opinion, you wrote this:

Originally Posted by Bricker

I started out thinking that the only difference between my hypo and the immigration business was the very dangerous, "Well, we like these results but don't like those," which is, in my view, a really poor baseline principle.

But then someone pointed out that one law's text actually mentions discretionary enforcement and the other's does not. To me, that's a much more solid base upon which to rest a distinction.

To be honest, if you (and especially you) are going to start a thread like this, i expect that you've at least taken a look yourself to see what is and is not authorized by the laws relevant to your question. If you haven't looked, and someone calls you on it, then your hypothetical appears like little more than a politically-motivated gotcha. And if you have looked, and intentionally withheld the information in your OP, then it looks suspiciously like trolling.Either way, as xenophon41 suggests, it smacks of december's tactics.

As i said, it might not seem fair to hold you up to a higher standard than other people, but i do that with many people on this board. I expect that, in a thread about baseball statistics, RickJay and Munch (for example) will come better prepared than many other people. In a thread about the coal industry, i would hold Una Persson up to higher standards of knowledge than some unnamed schmoe. In tax law, i would expect Rand Rover to know what the hells he's talking about. And in law threads, especially the ones that you actually start, i expect that you've done your homework before you start throwing political mudpies.

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Whoosh. Unless you don't think that posting something solely in the hopes of getting a reaction, or springing a gotcha, not in the interest of actually discussing a topic, counts as trolling.

I'm just not seeing that (in that particular thread, anyway). Looks like he was starting a conversation. Does he have to say 'here is my initial position that I am not married to and may be in a state of flux and may well abandon in the light of new information" at the start?

If you see a 'gotcha' in there, I think you have to want to see it.

[VarlosZ]

mhendo raises some valid points -- Bricker probably should, simply out of self-interest, try to spell out exactly where he's going and what he's thinking instead of being coy in GD -- but, in a vacuum, the reaction to the executive authority OP is some kind of board psychosis. The purpose of (and inspiration for) the thread was patently obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, and it would have required about one week's worth of experience on the forums to be able to divine which way Bricker was leaning. I could sort of understand being nervous about some legal-expertise based "gotcha" in the wings, but in this particular case it wouldn't be all that difficult to look up the basics of the relevant laws if one was so concerned (which isn't a bad idea in it's own right for someone considering debating the topic), or one could even just ask Bricker if he had some relevant legal knowledge in mind. Ok, maybe he should've spelled out his thoughts precisely, but (1) that kind of style can be a little boring, and (2) at worst it's a venial sin.

And, of course, it's actually an interesting and relevant question he raised: what are the legal limits of the President's non-enforcement discretion, and, the law aside, what constitutes appropriate use of said discretion? I'm sure I'm not, like, helping anything by bitching here, but we'd probably all have a much better time in GD we could just let the smaller personal stuff slide, grant the benefit of the doubt, and focus on debate.

[Really Not All That Bright]

How dare he make us think?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

And, of course, it's actually an interesting and relevant question he raised: what are the legal limits of the President's non-enforcement discretion, and, the law aside, what constitutes appropriate use of said discretion? I'm sure I'm not, like, helping anything by bitching here, but we'd probably all have a much better time in GD we could just let the smaller personal stuff slide, grant the benefit of the doubt, and focus on debate.

Despite what i said above, i agree with all of this.

I disagree with Bricker politically on plenty of thing, and i've disagreed with him plenty about legal issues as well, but he does seem to draw a sort of Pavlovian response from some people around here, sometimes for the most innocuous stuff.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

mhendo raises some valid points -- Bricker probably should, simply out of self-interest, try to spell out exactly where he's going and what he's thinking instead of being coy in GD -- but, in a vacuum, the reaction to the executive authority OP is some kind of board psychosis. The purpose of (and inspiration for) the thread was patently obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, and it would have required about one week's worth of experience on the forums to be able to divine which way Bricker was leaning. I could sort of understand being nervous about some legal-expertise based "gotcha" in the wings, but in this particular case it wouldn't be all that difficult to look up the basics of the relevant laws if one was so concerned (which isn't a bad idea in it's own right for someone considering debating the topic), or one could even just ask Bricker if he had some relevant legal knowledge in mind. Ok, maybe he should've spelled out his thoughts precisely, but (1) that kind of style can be a little boring, and (2) at worst it's a venial sin.

And, of course, it's actually an interesting and relevant question he raised: what are the legal limits of the President's non-enforcement discretion, and, the law aside, what constitutes appropriate use of said discretion? I'm sure I'm not, like, helping anything by bitching here, but we'd probably all have a much better time in GD we could just let the smaller personal stuff slide, grant the benefit of the doubt, and focus on debate.

Thanks. I had not done any research on this issue, except reading a second- hand account of a similar hypothetical. I had an initial reaction but not solid detail.

I am utterly baffled at John Mace's reaction.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Despite what i said above, i agree with all of this.

I disagree with Bricker politically on plenty of thing, and i've disagreed with him plenty about legal issues as well, but he does seem to draw a sort of Pavlovian response from some people around here, sometimes for the most innocuous stuff.

But you first reaction is to chide me, saying you hold me to some higher standard? Where and how did I breach that standard? I'm not allowed to post a GD topic unless I have done a hour's worth of research on it?

Immigration law is not my area. I can research, of course, but it's not something I am an expert on without research. I really don't get your first post.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I'm not allowed to post a GD topic unless I have done a hour's worth of research on it?

I don't think you are. I do, however, think it's poor form to post an analogy without saying what it's an analogy to.

You know that Pit rule that parody threads must include a link, so that folks aren't confused? Something similar is good form in GD: if you're going to say, "If X is okay, why isn't Y okay?", you need to spell out what X is, instead of just saying, "Is Y okay?"

That was confusing. Lemme try again.

Your OP proposed (roughly), "If it's okay for the president not to enforce immigration law, is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?" Except it didn't: it just said, "Is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?"

In this instance, yeah, anyone who read Krauthammer's piece in WaPo today already saw that analogy and knew what you were talking about. But you've done a lot of these OPs, I think, in which you elide the first part of the analogy, only springing it on people after they've discussed the second part of the analogy.

For myself, it makes me automatically suspicious of any thread you start: if there's some hypothetical, instead of being an interesting hypothetical, I feel like I need to figure out what the real discussion is, in case you make a fool of me.

And maybe it'd be okay for you to make a fool of me, sure. But the thing is, the analogies aren't always 100% perfect, and so I have to worry you'll call me a hypocrite due to some flaw in the analogy, and then the inevitable conversation about whether it's a good analogy must happen with me starting in a defensive, irritated mood.

Analogies are great. I just wish you'd always put both parts of them in the OP.

Edit: it is, of course, ridiculous to call your posts in that thread "trolling."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I don't think you are. I do, however, think it's poor form to post an analogy without saying what it's an analogy to.

You know that Pit rule that parody threads must include a link, so that folks aren't confused? Something similar is good form in GD: if you're going to say, "If X is okay, why isn't Y okay?", you need to spell out what X is, instead of just saying, "Is Y okay?"

That was confusing. Lemme try again.

Your OP proposed (roughly), "If it's okay for the president not to enforce immigration law, is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?" Except it didn't: it just said, "Is it okay for the president not to enforce tax law?"

Frankly, I thought using the phrase, "It's the right thing to do," in my OP, communicated to an audience of politically aware people, was sufficient linkage to the President's immigration plan.

Edit: it is, of course, ridiculous to call your posts in that thread "trolling."

Thank you.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I am utterly baffled at John Mace's reaction.

I think it's the same issue that has come up before...those types of threads amount to you playing "Gotcha". People find that annoying. What might be a perfectly valid tactic in cross examination just pisses people off in casual conversation. Also think I recall you agreeing to stop doing this kind of thing last time we had a similar discussion....

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Immigration law is not my area. I can research, of course, but it's not something I am an expert on without research. I really don't get your first post.

Well, if you don't get it, i probably can't help with further explanation. I thought my point was reasonably clear. We're not talking about something that would have taken hours on Westlaw here. A legal amateur apparently found the relevant law without much trouble.

I like having you around, i appreciate your legal knowledge, and i also enjoy crossing swords with you on those occasions where we disagree. You just occasionally infuriate me and other people with (what we feel are) somewhat snide and patronizing OP's like the one in question. That's all.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Frankly, I thought using the phrase, "It's the right thing to do," in my OP, communicated to an audience of politically aware people, was sufficient linkage to the President's immigration plan.

Saying "It's the right thing to do" links your OP about capital gains to immigration?

Bullshit. I simply do not believe that you honesttlly felt that was sufficient connection.

Bat your eyelashes harder, Counselor Gotchaya.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

I think it's the same issue that has come up before...those types of threads amount to you playing "Gotcha". People find that annoying. What might be a perfectly valid tactic in cross examination just pisses people off in casual conversation. Also think I recall you agreeing to stop doing this kind of thing last time we had a similar discussion....

Can you explain the possible gotcha here? I simply don't see it.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Can you explain the possible gotcha here? I simply don't see it.

Ray Charles could see it a mile away. Can POTUS suspend collection of capital gains taxes? No? Then how can he suspend immigration enforcement? GOTCHA.

Put another way, the real intent of your thread is to argue against Obama's recent immigration announcement, but you don't mention that in the OP. You attempt to get people to agree with a different argument, and then spring the "surprise"....you are really arguing about something else.

[Oakminster]

For what it's worth, here is a link to a similar discussion from 2011. Granted, this time there is no undisclosed court opinion involved, but it's still the same type of debate tactic.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Saying "It's the right thing to do" links your OP about capital gains to immigration?

Bullshit. I simply do not believe that you honesttlly felt that was sufficient connection.

Bat your eyelashes harder, Counselor Gotchaya.

Come on.

Obama NALEO Speech: Immigration Decision 'Right Thing To Do'

Deportation move is right thing to do

Obama's Immigration Policy: 'Right Thing To Do'

Obama: Immigration policy change is 'right thing to do'

Obama: 'It is the right thing to do'

Obama Says Immigration Change is 'Right Thing To Do'

Obama: Halting DREAMers’ Deportations the ‘Right Thing to Do’

Immigration Reprieve 'Right Thing to Do, Period'
PRESIDENT OBAMA EXPLAINS HIS DECISION TO LET YOUNG ILLEGALS STAY

And:

Originally Posted by John Mace

This is smart, politically. Bad news for Romney. It really is an amazing coincidence that it suddenly became the "right thing to do" a few months before the election!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Frankly, I thought using the phrase, "It's the right thing to do," in my OP, communicated to an audience of politically aware people, was sufficient linkage to the President's immigration plan.

What would communicate the analogy sufficiently to an audience of politically aware people would be explaining the analogy in the OP. After all, your argument lives or dies based on whether it's a good analogy; not mentioning the analogy is a weird argumentative structure.

Make the OP clear, in other words.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Ray Charles could see it a mile away. Can POTUS suspend collection of capital gains taxes? No? Then how can he suspend immigration enforcement? GOTCHA.

Put another way, the real intent of your thread is to argue against Obama's recent immigration announcement, but you don't mention that in the OP. You attempt to get people to agree with a different argument, and then spring the "surprise"....you are really arguing about something else.

Except that the underlying immigration issue was obvious. In my hypothetical, Fake Romney calls his capital gains idea "The right thing to do." the audience for this posting is a group of very politically aware people. Obama's emphasis on "The right thing to do" was the way almost every headline reported the issue.

I refuse to believe that anyone at all read my post and didn't immediately think of the immigration issue. Didn't you? Didn't everyone?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

What would communicate the analogy sufficiently to an audience of politically aware people would be explaining the analogy in the OP. After all, your argument lives or dies based on whether it's a good analogy; not mentioning the analogy is a weird argumentative structure.

Make the OP clear, in other words.

What did you think the analogy was when you read the OP?

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I refuse to believe that anyone at all read my post and didn't immediately think of the immigration issue. Didn't you? Didn't everyone?

Frankly I took the "it's the right thing to do" bit as you being smarmy. It did not immediately trigger the Obama/immigration connection for me.