So a fake article where one man, who has a history of being racist and making very-edgy racist comments said some racist shit is the same thing as a fake article that says that a large group of union first responders mocked and heaped insults upon non union first responders that arrived to help during a disaster while people were dying?
Keep fucking that chicken Bricker. Buh buh buh you do it tooooooooooo!
No. I have a family, thank you. Unless there’s millions in the estate, in which case… papa!
But this raises some questions: you offered up your daughter’s baseless complaints as an example; their complaints to you fall on deaf ears. But that’s because they are, in fact, baseless. Here, as you concede, an Internet message board does not demand fairness. So why is your daughters’ experience illustrative? They are in a family, and treated fairly, a quality not necessary for a message board. Yes?
Bricker fooled me long time.
This is how I keep reading the thread title.
You must have linked to the wrong thread. In that one, doubts about the OP started with the first reply. It’s a far cry from “exactly nothing”.
What do you mean, “said exactly nothing”? AFAICT, the “fair and balanced denizens of the SDMB” looked at that anti-Romney OP that you linked to and instantly rated it highly implausible, to say the least. That thread is awash with posters remarking “probably won’t survive scrutiny”, “need more evidence”, “I’m not buying that it was staffers”, etc. etc.
If you mean simply that the other posters in that thread didn’t give that OP a sound drubbing for his credulity or partisan bias, as Bricker usually gets when he does the same sort of thing, that’s true. But as the current thread’s OP has pointed out, Bricker was taken at his own (high) valuation for a long time around here as a non-partisan intellectually rigorous debater of good faith. He’s worked pretty assiduously for quite a while to squander that goodwill with chronically deceptive and obfuscatory arguments. It’s not very convincing at this late date for him (or you) to come around acting all butthurt that he’s not being treated fairly by the Mean Old Liberals.
Not to be confused with the MeanOldLady (although, she probably is a Mean Old Liberal).
Maybe the reason conservatives drift away is that they don’t like losing arguments? Just sayin’, is all.
The ground has shifted, this ain’t your father’s Oldsmobile. My views haven’t changed significantly in the forty odd years I’ve been working my pop stand. But they used to be pretty radical, nowadays, they’re just lefty. I think of myself as “radical” more by force of habit than anything else.
Sneering “Comrade” at people, bitching about “union thugs”, nattering on about economic theories that have utterly exhausted themselves, that train has left the station, and they tore up the tracks when it left.
:dubious: So let’s see. Liberal posters found both dubious stories to be dubious, which is exactly what intellectual rigor is for: it lets you spot an implausible tale irrespective of whether or not it happens to flatter your biases.
But you, Bricker, need some sort of non-equivalence to complain about as unfair. So you’re bitching that the liberal posters were calmly skeptical about one of the two stories and vituperatively skeptical about the other.
This is not as impressive an indictment as you seem to believe.
Me too, although it seems that more recently Bricker has worn down the image of “impartial SDMB conservative poster”.
Okay, that’s pretty damn funny. I have no doubt in my mind that elucidator is a dope smoking fiend, being the hippie that he is. A very funny, sometimes insightful dope fiend, but a dope fiend nonetheless. And I actually mean that with admiration.
I think that you are likely the last sane conservative voice on this board. I am aligned with you politically in many respects, so I tend to pay attention when you post. You are now awarded the revoked Bricker title of “Conservative With A Brain”.
You live under my roof, you live by MY RULES!!! Now go take out the garbage.
Not true at all. I offered them up not because they were baseless, but because they were irrelevant. If I punish my child for misbehaving, it is because of what SHE did, and it doesn’t matter whatsoever whether or not her sisters did something wrong. That was the parallel I was drawing, between my child’s false belief that their behavior is somehow mitigated by the misbehavior of their sisters and Rand’s apparent belief that your misbehavior is mitigated by the misbehavior of liberals on this board. It has nothing to do with the baselessness of the complaint (I think Rand’s complaint about BrainGlutton is right on), but rather the attempt to lessen one own’s wrongdoing by claiming wrongdoing by someone else.
Actually, your problem seems to be that you see a problem and then get upset when other folks don’t solve it for you.
What post would you like to have seen in Brainglutton’s thread? Something like this?
Something like that?
Because guess who could have posted something like that?
Instead of being the change you want to be, though, you continually complain about how other folks aren’t the change you want them to be. Do it yourself!
As for myself, I saw that thread and figured out pretty quickly it was satire, and I thought of posting something along those lines. But I was too lazy to do so. And nobody else did, either. Did I scold them for it? No. I figured if they wanted a post like that, they needed to click the post reply button themselves.
I’ll go along with awarding John Mace that trophy.
OK. I’m gonna expand on what I said in the BrainGlutton thread, whether you guys care or not…
How you respond when your story was debunked counts for a LOT. In post #8 of your thread, I posted quotes (it was me in this case, anyone could have debunked it) from all the Alabama companies alleged to have been turned away by unions in New Jersey that showed that the story had definitely NOT happened the way the original article alleged. Your first response after the debunking, eight hours later, was:
[QUOTE=Bricker, in the original thread]
I’m willing to acknowledge that the story was not as egregiously toxic as the report I quoted – in good faith, I might add – led readers to believe.
But even the revised story is not fairly summarized by “mean old anti-union folks refused to work.” They were asked to affiliate with a union, and they didn’t want to. It’s now unclear to me if they were then told they could not work, or if they assumed incorrectly that affiliating was necessary. But if affiliating with a union was necessary to render emergency aid, I stand by my point: that’s toxic.
If, on the other hand, that assumption was incorrect, then I was headstrong and foolish to accept it on the basis of one source.
[/quote]
In other words, the most you were willing to admit was that MAYBE the story wasn’t QUITE as bad as it seemed at first flush, but there was still that whole “affiliating” thing, which was still *obviously *bad, (whatever it was, as the offended company rep who kept using that word had not in the slightest way defined it.) Every last shred of it had to be debunked completely and entirely before you gave in and apologized.
People had chided you in that eight hour gap for not checking your sources, as that’s something you chide other people for, but THAT’S when things started getting really nasty.
Compare that to BrainGlutton, who, while he didn’t apologize, did not cling to the concept that Buchanan had ACTUALLY SAID what was in the fake article, after everyone in the thread told him dailycurrant was a satire site. Compare that to davidm, who also did not apologize for his Romney article, but who, after one post questioning whether another poster was sure the story was bogus, had the sense not to keep insisting that there was something to the story, even after people in the thread told him it was a stupid pitting. SOMETIMES, letting it go earns you less trouble.
Secondly, Inner Stickler had a great point in the BrainGlutton thread: The stories that BrainGlutton and davidm posted are of no real import. If Buchanan really did say some racist shit, nothing happens to anybody. If Romney’s security really kept a few people waiting for him, a few people got chilly for a couple of hours, boo hoo.
If the unions of New Jersey really had a policy of keeping non-union crews from working in the disaster area, people potentially could have died. There were people on this board who lost power and had flooding; they were personally affected by this. The story mattered.
All accusations, all outrages are not equal. Hell, we even label certain things RO in this forum if they don’t really affect anybody. If I’m going to accuse my brother of stealing my cookie, nobody makes a big thing of it, and maybe it’s a funny story a couple of years down the road. If I’m going to accuse my brother of stealing a million dollars, I better be DAMNED sure of my evidence before I do so, because right or wrong, it’s going to tear our relationship apart.
Wait. You guys go buy your hydroponic chronic, and then you dump some seeds in there? Weird.
I’m a liberal, and I still think Bricker’s one of the most intellectually honest posters here.
So, you know, that matters, right?
Please. In the thread Bricker started, people piled on his ass with the haughty “how dare you!” stuff. In the thread I linked to, there were some murmurings of it maybe not being true, and when it was posted that it definitely wasn’t true, no one posted a single thing of the nature that everyone posted against Bricker. Absolutely night and day difference. If you can’t see it, then that’s something you may want to think about.
Kimstu, try to understand something that’s not forcefed to you by your chosen group of fucking idiots for once in your life.
The difference between the two threads is in how people reacted to the OP once the OP’s claim was shown to be bullshit. I’m not “butthurt” that Bricker’s not being treated fairly, I’m just pointing out the stark difference in treatment when one posts anti-Obama bullshit and another posts anti-Romney bullshit (both believing it is true initially).
Please. You couldn’t argue your way out of the proverbial wet paper bag. Everything you post that attempts to have any more substance than a snarky one-liner shows you for the complete idiot you are.
Get off your high horse, you fucking joke of a human being.
Nope. Wrong. You fucked up. I don’t believe that.
All I was doing was showing the difference in reaction of other posters to the OP of a thread that turned out to be linking to a bullshit news article. Where the article is anti-Obama, the posters turn on the OP like hyena circling a limping zebra. Where the article is anti-Romney, there’s so much meh that one could stock a discount meh emporium for years.
Way to miss the point. The point is other posters’ reactions to the OP. The reaction is different in Bricker’s thread, davidM’s thread, and Brainglutton’s thread. And the reason for the difference is the political leaning of the OP and the political leaning of most posters here.
Yet the posters here maintain that they are fair and balanced fact-based truthseekers who are world-renowned for their intellectual rigor. Well, a very cursory examination of Bricker’s thread and davidM’s thread disproves that theory quite handily.