I await Bricker’s return to this thread admitting he was in error, and the chorus of posters telling him he’s “classy” for manning up, before he goes off and does the exact same shit ad infinitum. And by “await”, I mean “am put to sleep by the thought of”.
Nah…I am over that. If you notice, I haven’t started a Pit thread in over a month. Why? Because I realize after all the harsh criticism I received, that most, if not all, of my Pit threads were stupid and/or pointless.
Yes, it is. Providing the best pedantic defense possible for his client (opinion) regardless of the truth or any intellectual integrity.
Where are you from?
That’s cool. It’s just…stones, houses, glass, that sort of thing. You still have plenty of sand in your vagina about stupider shit.
I thought the brief he filed in Eric Holder v. Well Known Internet Meme was pretty convincing. Pity he couldn’t find the defendant to have him show up in court.
A non-linking pointer to an unnamed thread. Tracking it down, Bricker only quoted another poster whose link was to a 404 error. (This isn’t laziness or incompetency on Bricker’s part – it’s clever lawyer’s delaying tactics, and most reminiscent of a Youtube linked in another recent SDMB thread where a Freeman acting as self-attorney bamboozled Judge and D.A. by misquoting the law. :smack: )
But let me help out. The 404 article at the end of Bricker’s peculiar evidence chain is available in the Internet Wayback Machine. Guns are mentioned precisely twice in that article.
To me it shows rather the opposite of what I think Bricker wanted it to show.
I don’t know how this case is to be decided in this “coutroom.” I’m afraid I’ll have to recuse myself from jury duty, as I’m prejudiced – I think defendant is a hypocrite and an imbecile.
At first when I read that last post by Bricker I thought he was complaining about posters adhering overnarrowly to the title of the thread and addressing that strict interpretation rather than speaking to the obvious broader intent of the OP, which would have inspired a whole different Pit thread (not to mention placing an enormous drain on our national irony reserves), but it turns out that he’s just presenting your standard “Everybody knows that!” Internet arguing technique so carry on.
Man, that’s a long sentence.
Pretty much.
I was willing to concede that the underlying meme was true to a degree - that there were certainly individual Democrats in the previous decade who signaled at various times that no, they weren’t going to do anything about gun control anytime soon, in order to neutralize that issue and have their electoral success or failure be about other issues entirely. And that at times and to some extent this was true of the party generally.
But I would have needed to see something specific to indicate that this was a forever-and-always commitment, or one that, due to whatever combination of timing and strength of commitment, should reasonably have been expected to still be in force as the Dems in Congress responded to Newtown.
The Webb example wouldn’t have been germane even if he’d pledged never, ever, ever to vote for gun control, because he decided not to run for re-election in 2012, a fact that I pointed out in post 72 of the original thread. He doesn’t get to vote for or against gun control anymore.
So AFAIAC, we’re still waiting for an example, since one that’s irrelevant doesn’t exactly count.
The cite was not the link, but the commentary on the link in the actual post I cited.
Are you serious?
I love thread creep. I’m waiting for the ATMB thread.
Apparently not very.
Summarizing what’s wrong with Bricker’s lone ‘example,’ post 50 from the original thread:
- Senator Webb didn’t say anything like what the Doper he quoted suggested.
- Even if he had, Webb is irrelevant as a for-instance. He’s retired from the Senate and can neither honor nor violate any pledge he made concerning gun control in the wake of Newtown.
- Bricker now says he wasn’t citing Webb, but rather what a SDMB poster said in 2006 about what Webb said. (What that supports, and how, are as unclear to me as I’m sure they are to every poster here besides Bricker.)
- That contradicts what Bricker said in post 50:
And if there are “plenty of examples” it should be easy to cite some.
But the simple fact is that the party platform explicitly says they desire more regulation, not less or not status quo. Frankly, that blows the thesis to shreds.
Look: in the original GD thread, tomndebb, moderating, said he was less than happy with the way I’d made my exchange with Bricker a personal one. He didn’t cite a particular post, so I’m not sure what exactly he meant. But given the current direction of the discussion, it wasn’t going to get any less personal. So taking it to the Pit seemed like the appropriate thing.
As they say in New Jersey, “you got a problem with that?”
Seems to me, to the best of my recollection, that Dems have studiously avoided talking about the subject as much as possible. Wasn’t anything in it for them. Best thing for them to do is speak in the vaguest possible terms and then make sure that they have a photo op picture of themselves and a gun, preferably hunting.
For nearly a generation, the NRA has been the rabid elephant in the room. Pissing them off would be the political equivalent of boring a hole into a fire ant mound and fucking it.
So, yeah, it makes sense that they avoided the topic as much as possible. And if they absolutely had to comment, saying that the political reality of the situation made any real progress virtually impossible would be, well, telling the truth.
Stretching that to saying that the Dems were promising not to advance such an anti-gun agenda is more art than science, fudging the facts. And only a shovel full of horseshit from a man who deals in carload lots. One of the smaller potatoes, Bricker-wise.
So, in summation, pitting him for this particular example of the obfuscatory arts is like criticizing Jeffrey Dahmer for unhygienic food storage practices.
(Got your back on this one, Counselor. No, no need to thank me…)
Yeah, he should have binders full of examples. 
I could see an argument that the 2012 platform indicated that their earlier pledge (if such existed) was off the table.
But even that should have constituted fair warning. The President, every member of the House, and 20+ Dem Senators were up for a vote in 2012. Here’s where we currently stand; if that differs from where we used to stand and you don’t like it, you know where to find the ballot box.
At the same time, for instance, the Dems went from being a party that largely supported gay civil unions but not gay marriage, to one that came around to a full-throated endorsement of gay marriage rights. I strongly suspect that voters in 2006 and 2008 in all but a few of the most liberal states generally felt that they could vote for Dems without concern about whether they were going to vote in gay marriage. Guess the Dems violated their commitment there too. 
Yes. I prefer my Pit to be for bullying and GD for the usual circle jerks over the same issues. I’m a purist.
A) I was being intentionally confrontational to demonstrate the method.
B) IIRC the person in question is retired, so technically it isn’t his job anymore.
Webb counts, because he said it – what difference does it make if he, personally, decided not to run? I don’t claim this was some enforceable contract against each and every Democrat. I claim Democrats, and their pundits and supporters (here and elsewhere) generally made noises that advanced that idea.
A point that you, at least, don’t see, to question too much.
Until it comes time to Pit me.
[QUOTE=septimus’s link]
They (the Scots Irish) are deeply patriotic, having consistently supported every war America has fought
[/QUOTE]
So consistently that in the American Civil War they supported BOTH sides. That’s some patriotism! [/hijack]