So I’m wondering if Bricker, in his time as a public defender, ever used the phrase “my client did nothing wrong” in court, recklessly disregarding the fact that his client shoplifted a lollipop from 7-11 when he was nine.
As a longtime lurker, I remember when Bricker was an interesting and worthwhile poster. Sometime in the last few years, he turned into the second coming of december. He’d rather be technically right than honest. That’s his choice, I guess. :rolleyes:
He’s right. Who cares?
Yes, exactly correct. Someone who says, “ACORN may have done things wrong, but the reaction was entirely out of proportion to what they did!” I have no problem with. In fact, I agree with that person.
Someone who refuses to admit that ACORN did one thing wrong, ever – that’s the guy I have a problem with.
And so should everyone reading this.
But for many of you, it’s seemingly more important to be on the correct liberal side than admit the obvious.
Hope is the thing with feathers . . .
Which is that ACORN plead guilty to a crime in Nevada; one of their employees paid people per registration.
Plead guilty so that they could pay the $5,000 fine, rather than spend thousands more on lawyers.
But they plead guilty. Of a crime.
And ACORN also counts cards in Vegas.
ACORN once shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.
ACORN took a pencil home from the office supply cupboard .
ACORN ate a grape in the produce section without paying.
ACORN double parks.
If I ever did, then I was an advocate. My duty in those cases was to zealously defend my client. And I wasn’t a witness. When I would say something like that, the context was always argument: The evidence shows that my client did nothing wrong. My job was not to lead the jury to the truth as a neutral analyst.
Are ACORN’s defenders here also advocates, zealously advancing its interests ahead of the truth? Are you saying that they may be relied upon to never admit ACORN’s guilt, even if they believe it?
Really fucking petty, Bricker. You continue to make yourself smaller and smaller. I used to have some respect for you as a reasonable conservative. It’s getting harder to maintain.
And then there’s this tactic. “I can’t really deny this without looking idiotic, so I’ll mock it.”
Good. Fine. As long as you’re willing to admit their guilt, you can chortle all you like.
ACORN plead guilty to a crime. This means they are “guilty”. It does not mean that they necessarily committed the act. Sometimes people or entities will plead out for reasons of expediency. However, you are technically correct. You may have a cookie.
And ACORN once paid for only one newspaper from a box, but took two.
ETA: You invite mocking with your technical nit-pickery.
Why? Why is it, in the middle of a debate, I’m stymied by the idiotic demand for a cite when I say that ACORN engaged in wrongdoing? Why didn’t you step up then, jayjay, and say, “Look, let’s be honest here and admit that ACORN did some shady things.” Why didn’t you do that then?
Do I come back to you and say, “Gosh, jayjay, I used to have some respect for you as a reasonable liberal, but your failure to do that has really diminished that respect.”
Why can my opposition insist on ridiculous levels of proof, and then, when that proof finally materializes, I am vilified for pointing it out?
Is it that we all sort of understood that the claim that ACORN did nothing wrong was bullshit, but wejust weren’t going to actually say it? And now it’s a social faux pas that I call attention to it?
Seriously – explain this to me. How is it that one side gets to do all this shit?
What do you think? Do you think they really committed the crime? Or do you believe still the Diogenes theory of absolute, snow-pure innocence?
It means they didn’t do anything “wrong,” which is not the same thing as saying a partsan DA didn’t extort a trivial plea agreement out of them for a contrived offense.
So what evidence would it take to convince you that they did, in fact, pay workers per registration form?
So, does Obama have to resign now? Or does he just cease to be President effective with this plea? How long before McCain is sworn in? Who’s in charge until then? So many questions.
No, oddly enough Obama gets to remain President.
What’s your position on the actual question, though? I notice you didn’t really address that.
Afraid they’ll take your HiveMind Liberal Card away if you admit it, eh?
I’m saying it’s not wrong that they did.
I’ve no problem admitting that ACORN violated a minor law in Nevada, a law which has a sufficient amount of merit to not be casually dismissed as inherently useless, outdated or unfair.
Of course, this being true allows for a claim of victory over… well… Dio, I guess. Not exactly an Everest of accomplishment.
I think I need to start another thread. I’ll call it “Frank is not a liberal.”
My argument?
It’s obvious from the response in this thread that a liberal is not permitted to admit to the fact that ACORN actually did anything wrong. Acceptable responses are the Diogenes method (deny, deny, deny) and the Star Trek method (deflector shields up! mock, evade, remonstrate Bricker for your loss of respect) but in no event is the participating liberal ever allowed to simply admit that ACORN did anything wrong.
That Frank is willing to do so simply proves that Frank is no liberal (and probably doesn’t like haggis either).
It’s amazing. All these responses, and such a lack of admissions for something that is obvious to every single reader.
You’re not a liberal, then?
Seriously – thanks. And it’s more than Dio, although he’s the most obstinate and vocal.
Do you acknowledge that doing so is illegal in Nevada?
The law was broken. In what way does that violation differ from DeLay’s shuttling of money from federal to state campaign funds? Was DeLay’s violation also not wrong?