After five pages of trying to pin Bricker down in the Reid Admits No Support For “Assault Weapons” Ban thread, there were things I wanted to say that might irk the GD mods more than I already have. Hence this thread.
Anyhow, the basics, for those just tuning in: in his OP, Bricker said:
Since Bricker has been of the opinion that this commitment, if truthful, had to be for ever and all time, people (including yours truly) have been trying to pin him down to provide for-instances of this alleged commitment on the part of the Democratic Party, or individual Dems, to see just how strong a commitment was made in actuality.
After five pages, the request for a for-instance has been met with:
Intense documentation?!? You pompous ass, you haven’t been willing to provide one single for-instance.
(Note to mods: could you kindly change the thread title to: “Bricker: any documentation at all = “intense documentation” so don’t ask me for any.” I apparently hit the wrong button, and next thing I knew, my OP had been submitted.)
The “incredible bad faith” of asking for a for-instance in GD of something that you’re claiming not only exists, but has properties beyond those that most of us are willing to just take your word for…this is “my post is my cite, and you’re posting in bad faith if you don’t accept that.”
Bricker, you’re not an encyclopedia. You’re not even particularly factual in the recent threads where we’ve run into each other. You’re working towards being just another “I’ll invent my own reality” conservative.
as a response for repeated requests for a cite, that is the dumbest fucking thing said in GD since our last 9/11 Truther visited. But I will have to take your word for it because TL;DR and all.
However, I’m confused as to the Don to whom you refer. Don Drysdale? Donnie Osmond? Donald Trump? I’m still not interested enough to read the other thread, but I’d like to know to put the whole thing in context.
What, has it been three weeks already? Sheesh, I gotta get my calendar straight.
People, it’s simple. Set your Manual Ignore settings appropriately. GQ? You’re probably good. Cafe? Definitely. IMHO? Usually. Pit? Probably not. GD or Elections? Definitely not. Unless you like partisan hackery, that is. If you’ve a penchant for Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, et at, by all means take him seriously. Otherwise, just see who’s posting and move on.
Oh, come on. RTF you know very well The Bricker Show is one of the longest running shitcoms here at The Straight Dope. This sort of behavior is one of the crucial plot elements of the genre better known as political action/misadventure programming.
Oookay, just read that entire editorial. There’s no mention of second amendment or firearms (I control+F’ed at the end just to make sure), and one mention of guns:
And THAT’s your evidence of “Democratic legislators who pledged never to consider new gun control legislation and then went back on that pledge”? Are you serious?
I’m just glad that Bricker cleared things up so that I know I was posting in bad faith in that thread. I mean, offering actual evidence is clearly “bad faith”. I should have known better and made reference to well established, but uncited, memes. Shame on me!