Shit, I used to have one of those and nobody ever accused me of being smart.
Well, OK, but that’s going to leave an empty seat on the bus to the reeducation camp. (I can’t remember, did the Democrats announce that reeducation camps were off the table?)
Nah, the Dems never put them on the table in the first place, the wimps. 
Now there’s some of us in the lefty blogosphere who’d like to send every Villager in good standing to re-education camps. But that’s not ideological; Rush, the Fox crew, and other conservatives, no matter how misguided, can keep on truckin’. We just want to see if we can cure cases of seemingly terminal both-sides-ism. It’s a humanitarian thing. 
I was thinking a big gathering of Dem bigwigs, where all the questions could be examined. Then they could announce their conclusions, that it isn’t what they aren’t saying that is the problem, but the way that they aren’t saying it. For instance, the program they don’t have to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages, they need to not talk about that on twitter and Facebook a lot more.
Not valid.
When someone says, “An actual, for-real crime was committed,” then it’s valid to demand details on what crime it was. It’s a question that can be definitively and simply answered.
When someone says, “This was the general mood, or meme, going around,” it’s considerably more difficult. It’s not a claim of precision – the reason i haven’t started trying to accumulate any other examples is that if i offer up two or three, they’ll be hand-waved away as outliers or Untrue Scotsmen. I know if i found ten good examples, that would probably do the trick, but that’s a huge amount of search for a question that has no definitive search terms – that’s hours of labor.
And it’s especially infuriating because I KNOW you know what I’m saying is true. RTFirefly concedes as much.
It’s now beyond any sort of contention that Bricker’s partisan nature routinely overrides his ability to think critically or express an informed opinion on a topic.
I think he should be stripped of his SDSAB distinction as a result. Ceremoniously, since I would love to attend.
No, you are simply wrong on the first point and I think on the 2nd as well. I have no reason to lie about this. I have taken your side in many debates.
And of course the alternative to starting a debate about something you are unwilling or inable to substantiate is simple: don’t.
I wish more people would follow this very simple and basic principle. It seems to me far preferable than the alternative of having to keep manfully apologizing when it turns out that your basic premises were incorrect.
No, I don’t know what you’re saying is true. Democrats aren’t a hive organism; on the contrary, Dems get mocked for their fractious and fractured nature. It’s totally plausible to me that Dems fall into camps something like this:
-Anti-gun
-Pro-gun-control
-Pro-gun
-Apathetic about guns
-Think gun control is a very important issue and are willing to die on that hill
-Think gun control is a very important issue but aren’t willing to die on that hill
-Don’t think gun control is a very important issue
And of course a single Dem may fall into one or more camps.
Therefore if you tell a story in which one Dem made a comment in 2004, and another Dem made a different comment in 2012, the story is not remotely illuminating.
What I believe is that prominent Democrats have said, “We don’t plan to disarm Americans,” and some gun nuts (distinct from pro-gun folks) took that to mean that all guns would forever be legal. After Sandy Hook, it’s plausible that those same Dems said, “Wow, okay, maybe we shouldn’t have assault rifles.”
But here’s the thing: I’ve seen no evidence of a single prominent Democrat making that change. You, who insist a much more dramatic change has occurred, offer as your best evidence a seven-year-old post on the SDMB that comments on an editorial written by a politician who’s no longer in power.
Given your ability to find cites, this works, if anything, AGAINST your claim. If that’s the best you can find, it’s astonishingly weak.
And the petulant prediction that better cites will also be rejected is shameful. If you want to make such a claim and be taken seriously, then OFFER a better cite. Don’t offer something absurd and then excuse your own lazy citation.
He had a better cite but there wasn’t room in the margin to present it.
What utter crap. How many posts appear on these pages, and pass unchallenged, that say, “Republicans are…” or “Republicans would have us believe…” or “Republicans want…” without any trace of this nuance that is suddenly so critical when discussing Democrats?
Let me guess: that’s different, because Republicans DO have a hive mind? They don’t fall into camps; they are one monolithic evil entity?
That’s a good question. How many statements like that do pass unchallenged? Some examples would be nice.
Seriously?
Republicans are all whiny bitches who CONSTANTLY complain about their perceived disparate treatment on the SDMB.
Hey retard. Just so you know this board has a search function.
Of course you know that. You just wanted to play your stupid game of “Retarded Questions”.
In a thread that is about you making a claim and not backing it up with cites? Serious as all get out.
This is as good an illustration of my point as i think I can get, then.
If there’s any reader here who honestly, in good faith, doubts the truth of the claim many posts appear on these pages, and pass unchallenged, that convey general sentiments about Republicans, with phrases like “Republicans are…” or “Republicans would have us believe…” or “Republicans want…” I’d really like to know.
In my opinion, you cannot be a regular reader here and doubt the truth of that claim.
I’m not sure it matters anyway. I mean, even if there are unfair statements that go unchallenged - and I’m not saying there are - that doesn’t affect other arguments or statements. But I suppose in strict fairness we should try to do something.
Maybe we could have some kind of points system with categories and everything. Whenever one side of a position makes and inaccurate assertion and it goes unchallenged, then the other side gets a point. Save up enough points and you can make your own inaccurate assertion without any challenge whatsoever.
If the pro-Ginger movement get’s enough points, for example, it can say that Mary-Ann was a prostitute and nobody can say “Boo”.
Yeah, that sounds like a great way to fight ignorance.
I’m not sure you’re illustrating the point you think you are. I ask for a simple cite for what you claim is a not unusual occurance, and you respond with a post plumful of puffery. To do this in a thread about you not posting a cite for another claim of supposed widespread occurance…?
How long does it take you to ask the question?
Vs.
How long does it take me to find enough examples that meet your criteria, whatever they might be?
It’s not a genuine request – it’s a tactic to derail. It’s inexpensive for you to ask and expensive for me to answer. It’s dilatory.