Why not?
It’s really no big deal to treat someone gently, and someone else like shit, as long as the guy chosen for the shit treatment is conservative? That seems like it might matter.
So in a Pit thread about Bricker, you didn’t mean to make any comment about Bricker, but rather just wanted to make a general observation about this message board being ever so mean to non-liberals. Gotcha.
This is an example of why I consider you officious, hyper-legalistic, and absurdly pedantic, and why I really dislike your style of debate.
You wipe asses for a living, don’t you? Or maybe you make sandwiches–I’d believe making sandwiches. No way anyone pays you to do anything more complicated than one of those two things.
ETA: If you wipe asses then make sandwiches, please wash your hands in between you dirty bastard.
Says the snow-mobile salesperson.
Thank you for calling to confirm my dentist appointment. I’ll be there.
Really? God,** Hamlet**, I am so sorry! I thought you were a lawyer, I had no idea you were respectably employed! Forgive.
Be sure to wear clean underwear.
To restate:
BG posts false information about a known racist saying some racist stuff.
He doesn’t demand it is true when we find out it isn’t, and doesn’t demonize conservatives in general.
Bricker posts false information about union first responders harassing non-union first responders while people are dying, and takes a pot-shot at unions in general and holds onto his nonsense after we realize the story is false.
Bricker says it is the same thing.
Rand Rover runs to Bricker’s defense, since RR idolizes him so.
My only regret so far is that, in the spirit of all the parody threads in the pit right now, I didn’t title this, “Look for the Bricker label”
Well, now, Lobo, we can all respect and admire the hard working line men, and so forth struggling to get the lights back on, but I think “first responders” refers to a rather small set of people. :Police, firemen, EMT’s, like that there.
True, weren’t there EMTs and Fire Rescue that came with them? If not, my mistake.
You claimed that in the thread you linked to that
Well no, they did say something. Starting with the very first reply were variations of “I don’t think this could have happened” to “this didn’t happen”. Now you seem to be trying to claim that the responses weren’t sufficiently venomous. I said before, and maintain, that the reaction in that thread was a far cry from “exactly nothing”.
I like Bricker’s posts. I disagree with most of them. But what he is all about in my opinion is sharpening he arguing skills and poking the opposition. And I count myself as opposition. I’m down with the rhetoric honing 100 percent. Skill at argumentation is important to me. Sometimes he just likes to annoy the opposition, and that is weaker sauce, but it also is about arguing. Those are reasons I like to post too. Although making a bad joke is also way high on my priority list. Bricker and John Mace are my favorite conservative posters. Sometimes they drive me nuts, but looking at how they are arguing is instructive enough to make it worthwhile.
You appear to view those two propositions as being mutually exclusive.
Why is that, I wonder?
Well, you’ve done it now…
You say “partisan hack” like it’s a bad thing. Where would the world, and politics in particular, be if hacks didn’t endorse the bullshit that their leaders spout?
There would be no Great Pyramid, I can tell you that! Nor even any of those lesser pyramids.
Honestly, Bricker, I don’t even consider you a conservative anymore. The only true conservative thing you seem to hold onto is the anti-union thing (which is why your opinion on that is so frustrating, as, even as a conservative, I supported unions.) You’re not quite liberal, but you are a moderate.
The only thing holding you to being conservative is that you identify so strongly with your “team,” the Republicans, that you still feel the need to snipe at liberals. That’s was the purpose of your thread, obvious by your insistence even after you were clearly wrong, and that’s why you got treated differently. I get blasted the same way when I snipe at people, and I am not conservative.
I also do not see how anyone thinks Rand Rover is reasonable. John Mace? Sure. But RR? His basic schtick is talking about how liberalism is morally wrong while claiming that believing in morality is childish and incorrect. The only thing reasonable about RR is that he sometimes agrees with us liberals about certain things. But all libertarians do, as that’s what makes them libertarian. They’re financially conservative, socially liberal, small government isolationists.
And, no, I don’t know what I was smoking when I previously said adaher was the replacement for Bricker.John Mace makes a lot more sense. Too bad there’s no other prize for that other than being respected.
If I had two daughters, I imagine they would stop whining about people treating them unfairly well before they reached adulthood. Else they might look like pathetic, bitchy, spineless tools.
He sucky sucky.