What, exactly, did Webb say that supports your thesis? I read the link, and it I’m not seeing it. Please quote exact words-- do not paraphrase.
This is pretty entertaining to read as an outside observer.
I know people in real life like this (demos and repubs) that are so irrationally tied to their position they can’t even step back to observe how irrational they are.
I’m talking about you John Mace (I keed, I keed 
)
Webb didn’t, apparently, but Johanna did.
Johanna did what, exactly? In other words, which of the claims in your OP, or in any other post of yours in that thread, are supported by Johanna’s post from seven years prior?
Here’s your OP again, in case you’ve forgotten the specific claims you’ve made:
Challenge: support the claim without believing Democrats are a hive mind alien organism from the Betelgeuse star system.
Wait a minute. Webb “counts because he said it”, but he didn’t actually say “it”, Johanna did.
So Webb doesn’t count?
I don’t question the fact that there were some noises.
The point, which I made in the OP of this thread, was that
And your refusal to provide any for-instances of this commitment left us no evidence of its broadness of support, or what reasonable expectations of durability might be attached to that commitment.
Goddamn, Bricker, just how obtuse are you?
But all you’ve shown is that Webb may have made such a commitment. And if he was just one of several individual actors in makiing this commitment, then his commitment dies with the end of his public service, end of story.
And since
And it’s visions of Johanna that keep me up past the dawn, but now we’ve just got one SDMB poster interpreting something Webb said as such a commitment.
I’m not seeing evidence of either broadness or durability of this commitment here. If you think you’ve provided any, then don’t bogart that joint, my friend. And if you think the fact that you and I agree that this meme existed in some form also constitutes evidence that there’s anything about it that should have been regarded as lasting, your brain has deteriorated to the point of GD-worthlessness, and you should stick with the less serious fora.
You know, it’s really silly to try and debate this in two different threads. And I can tell from Bricker’s terse posts that he’s not really interesting in defending his thesis, he’s just giving it the minimal effort needed to not concede.
I think I’m done. I said all I really want to say on this subject in my last post in the GD thread.
Which was a very good post, btw. And yeah, (a) it makes no sense to debate it in two different threads (I’m out of the other one, for the reasons I gave Loach), and (b) there comes a time to just plain call it quits. I’m not at that point quite yet, but I can understand why you are. Thanks for fighting the good fight as long as you did.
Of Bricker’s thesis, as best as I can tell, “these visions of Johanna are now all that remain.”
Jesus, Bricker is just phoning it in at this point.
I imagine it’s only a matter of time before he starts asserting that the paper towel tube experiment proves that Democrats were against gun control before they were for it.
Wait, this is genius. I’m going to start using “Post 50” as my cite in all arguments going forward, even in real life.
“Who says you can reserve a bench press here in the gym just by putting a Starbucks cup on it?”
“Chill out, dude. Post 50!”
Maybe by “Post 50” Bricker meant that he was over fifty years old, and thus was unable to hurl horseshit as far as he used to.
Bricker: [Panting]… post 50… can’t keep up…
Bricker is confusing advice made by political consultants to the Democrats, which they accepted with a commitment by the Democratic Party. Those are very different things.
Separately, there were also assurances by political commentators that the Dems were leaving gun control alone because they knew that there were a number of rural swing voters on the subject. And those who swing enjoy disproportionate power.
a) Cite: My post is my cite: I am a political commentator. (Less jokey: so is Charlie Cook.)
b) Furthermore I am awesome: any sort of gun control we get will be riddled with loopholes. The NRA’s actions reveal that they love handing guns over to psychotic maniacs, hardened criminals and drug addled murderers. The proposed background check fix is toothless and therefore pointless, but the NRA agreed not to ding the Dems for it.
No, he isn’t “confused” at all. If only.
This thread is starting to look like an Onion Headline: “Breaking News: Yet Another Doper Realizes Bricker Is A Dishonest, Amoral Weasel”.
But he’s our Dishonest, Amoral Weasel. 
Actually, I kid: I think Bricker is on the whole an addition to the board. He has stated that he gets more vociferous responses for lax arguments than liberals here do, and I’m guessing he’s correct. The problem is he has a SDSAB intellect (objectively and IMHO), so he really should be held to a higher than average standard.
What I typed earlier
-
The weird part about this is that AFAIK Bricker showed no inclination to believe these sorts of assurances extended by pundits (not commitments made by the Democratic party) yet he’s still butthurt about it. [ETA: Elvis sees dishonesty: I see butthurtedness.]
-
I see from the original thread that John Mace beat me to the punch yesterday by several hours. For example here:
etc., etc.
- Personal characterizations, insults: gun nuts are pretty emotive. I established above that the background checks look like they will be easily circumvented and therefore pointless. There were similar problems with the 1990s assault weapons ban. And handgun bans are currently off the table -heck off the radar- and have been so since the 1970s or early 1980s at a stretch. They also have a certain court decision to contend with. The point being that even after a crazy shoots scores of pre-schoolers in the face, the range of restrictions considered are far more lenient than anything already put in place in the remainder of the developed world. (Definition of developed: OECD membership).
To vote Republican reflexively because, somewhere, somebody in the US dreams of turning the US in England, Japan or Switzerland and ignores the ponderousness of the political process is …highly emotive. Or at least taken in by an industry lobby that disguises itself as a human rights organization.
- Constructively: Framing an OP around your political perceptions -or amorphous perceptions of any sort- is inherently problematic. That’s why you dig up cites before getting the ball rolling. It gives us something to work with, rather than pointlessly wrangling over 5 pages or so. This is why I am an empiricist: I think I have solid conceptual intuition on certain topics (so does Bricker- and we’re both probably delusional) but I typically need to qualify my remarks once my perceptions hit my citations. This effect is even more pronounced when the citation consists of data: there are always a few twists to unravel.
I haven’t been a ‘construction inspector’ for over a decade, now. I still ‘do my job’, and ‘inspect’ any construction site I see. Sometimes the job gets unremovably ‘under your skin’. I can’t fault the guy for that, until the day I manage to stop analyzing the ‘bad job that resulted in the pothole that formed in the latest parking lot I found one in’. Or the even ‘worse’ construction incompetence I regularly see.
Agreed.
Not agreed. IMO, we treat everyone the same and hold everyone to the same standard.
And there is an active debate in GD right now where Bricker is demanding exactly the same thing from posters that we are demanding of him. He’s getting a “but everyone knows it” response, and is not accepting that. Rightly so. And he should expect to be held to the same standard in his own threads.
Bricker may well be the most intelligent and honest conservative on the boards, certainly the most prolific and engaged. But that says less about Bricker than it says about the sorry state of conservative politics.
But he can be cute as the very Dickens when he is stubbornly and belligerently wrong, so let’s keep him. For now.
Definitely this. Since I haven’t changed my stance substantially since the recent mass shootings, I now consider myself in the conservative 50% of the nation since I don’t want an AWB (since it would be useless), and my default position unless I can be convinced otherwise is for more 2nd amendment freedoms. But since I dont’ toe the party line and proclaim that no weapon or ammo can be restricted ever, that makes me a “gun grabber”. Okay, I’ll just shut up and stop providing a voice of reason. Very helpful in raising the tone of conversation in America.
On the other side, I don’t get called a “gun nut” when I support the right to self-defense and oppose meaningless weapons bans. Just when I think that maybe, we might consider a restriction on 30 round magazines, but I haven’t made up my mind about it yet, that makes me a “gun grabber”.
It makes me want the anti-gun crowd to do better politically so we can marginalize this inflammatory and knee jerk rhetoric. And it’s really saying something that I feel this way, because unlike the usual false-equivalence arguments that “both sides do it too”, I really do also see inflammatory and knee jerk rhetoric coming from the gun control side. But it’s not nearly as stupid and dangerous as those nominally on my side.
Nice response. I guess I have to back up a bit and note that different posters operate on different levels. And while they’re is a minimum standard that everyone should be held to (even if they are frankly incapable of clearing that bar as some posters seem to be at times) I might direct some irkedness towards, say Bricker, when he uses bogus argumentation. Because he is capable of tight reasoning. Best to modulate the abuse though.
Ludovic: I hate to say it, but the arguments on the gun-grabbing side simply aren’t as compelling as I would like them to be. This is one of the few cases where criticizing both sides is not inane IMHO.
Personally I threw up my hands on this issue years ago. I’d like to close the gunshow loophole. But I’m frankly more interested in non-regulatory solutions. Think of a gun as a prescription: some become safer with it, others enhance their (frankly modest) risks. Most of the research I’ve seen has discussed the effects of a gun on the average gunowners home. It would be nice to break those effects down by sub-population.
I’m not working towards greater regulation so much as better consumer decisions. And furthermore I think the responsible gun-owners community should be buttressed. Specifically, if there’s an obsessive or psychotic gun owner, there should be an ethic whereby they can be advised by friends and family to leave their weaponry at the shooting range or maybe even an armory. To make a martial arts analogy it would be like , “Tapping out.” It’s not necessarily permanent and there’s no dishonor involved. Another analogy might be when those in their 80s decide to stop driving their car. Again-- it’s about acting responsibly.
There are also some sticky questions regarding whether somebody with manageable PTSD should own a gun. I think it’s ok in many many cases frankly. But it should be researched.
OK, I can buy that. But I think that in this case we are talking about the minimum level rather than anything else.