To what do you attribute the other responses which seek to justify the nonequal responses as a function of differences in the underlying facts, or the response of the OP?
Shouldn’t that be Rubber v. Glue?
No, no, no. Either you agree with Rand Rover or you don’t. Don’t try to distract. Do you agree with Rover’s ridiculous claim? If so, what’s your evidence to support the claim?
I say the claim is ridiculous and unsupported.
Blah blah blah. “I got caught out trying to forward the notion that unions and the left by proxy are so callous and unfeeling that they’d let people suffer and maybe die before letting red-blooded godfearing americans help and now I’m vainly trying to make brainglutton’s correct appraisal of Buchanan as a racist ass look similar in order to mitigate my own feelings of shame at either being so willing to believe anything noxious of my political opponents or conniving enough not to care.” If you don’t want to be vilified, don’t be vile.
That explains oh so much.
(a) I’m smarter and more rational and objective than everyone else 
(b) More seriously, there are plenty of other factors that also differentiate those two situations, which it’s entirely reasonable for people to comment on. In real life, it’s almost never the case that two situations are in fact precisely equivalent, with one on each side of the aisle. So, really, you’re doubly screwed: first of all, to really demonstrate a meaningful difference in response, you’d have to prove that the two situations were functionally identical, which you haven’t done. And then even if you somehow do that, all you’ve proven is that the SDMB is left-leaning, which of course no one is disputing in the first place.
Having not examined rigorously both sets of posters, have you considered the alternate explanation that there might be a pretty disjoint set of people who’ll open and read a Bricker thread with a cite from an actual news source vs. those who will open a random thread with a few bare links and actually bother reading it?
This is not the way to disagree with someone.
This is the way to disagree with someone.
Besides, how do you define “hack”? By which metric do you include Rand Rover and exclude brazil84, magellan01, IntelliQ, Chuck44, Simple Linctus, Martin Hyde, Lust4Life, Rune, Uzi, Fotheringay-Phipps, jtgain, Huerta88 or Terr? Just some posters from the top of my head.
I have a feeling you’re not as free as Hamlet’s daughters.
Social liberalism isn’t a predicate of neo-liberalism (or to Mises, just “liberalism”, to others, “classical liberalism” - in each case, referring to the doctrine of market freedoms, with no implications for social freedoms). It’s certainly not for self-identifying as a libertarian in the US, especially since the incipiency of paleolibertarianism (which doesn’t even acknowledge free movement of labour as a requirement for free markets, with Hans-Hermann Hoppe expounding the idea that gays be forcibly expelled from “liberal” societies). I’m not aware of anyone professing their status as a libertarian and support for gay marriage. Their most progressive position is that government should not be involved in marriage at all, which ignores the fact that their government is a signatory of the UDHR. The “leftist” criticism of liberalism in the US simply holds the notion that government interference can sometimes be beneficial for business, such as in the bailouts or stimulus (in other words, Reaganism).
Tougher still, obsessed with trying to educate us about concepts (like morality, obligation and ethics) that he thinks don’t exist.
A professor in front of an empty chalkboard who “lectures” by sneering and rolling his eyes at his students.
Also, I want to propose a different schoolyard analogy–Bricker, you have or had a reputation as someone who at least understands argument and can change his position, however much that rep has taken a beating lately. You get shat upon more than the average chump for the same reason that straight-A goody-two-shoes me got punished on average a lot harder for missing homework and whatnot than the mouth-breathers in the back of the class–higher expectations. There will be some who argue you don’t deserve them, I’m sure, but the fact remains. No doubt that some of the reason you get this is also due to the fact you take some obviously incorrect political positions (;)) but it’s not solely the reason.
“The liberals here crow over and over about how they are unbiased seekers of truth in this godforsaken world”.
Some do. Most don’t.
Care for a turn?
“I got caught out trying to forward the notion that unions and the left by proxy are so callous and unfeeling that they’d let people suffer and maybe die before letting red-blooded godfearing americans help and now I’m vainly trying to make brainglutton’s correct appraisal of Buchanan as a racist ass look similar in order to mitigate my own feelings of shame at either being so willing to believe anything noxious of my political opponents or conniving enough not to care.”
Accurate summary?
And since that’s true about basically any statement applied to any group, makes it a basically meaningless but troll-ish and offensive statement.
Well, I don’t think you feel shame. 
Who does? What’s your evidence?
Not really, but okay.
I honestly can’t tell, it’s such a mess of convoluted phrasing, and when I first saw it, my eyes glazed over because it was such a mess (I actually just did a search on “caught out” to see where that quote came from, and remembered the eye-glaze when I saw the post).
But no, from what I can tell, it’s phrased in vicious pit-style hyperbole and is not an accurate summary.
I never claimed to be unbiased.
I think the “facts have a liberal bias” meme could be cited as evidence.
While certainly true in some instances, in others it reeks of unjustified, self-congratulatory smugness.
I like Bricker a lot. He is more intellectually honest than the average SDMB poster, and certainly in the top 10% of internet denizens. He makes the same mistakes that we all make, and has the same foibles and idiosyncrasies that we all have, but he gets a lot more heat and focus because of his political position relative to this message board.
**Bricker **is not especially conservative on the American spectrum, which is sort of too bad, since it’s useful to engage people who hold very different political beliefs from yours who are also articulate and reasonable. I respectfully suggest that if you think **Bricker **is a typical American conservative, you are trapped inside an liberal bubble.
I do not agree with **Bricker’s **philosophy of message boards. He would prefer that posters call out bullshit with equanimity. This has some superficial appeal. For one, partisans calling out their own side for bullshit can be more effective than across-the-aisle anti-bullshit enforcement. For another, it somewhat balances out the fact that there are fewer conservatives on this site than liberals. The fundamental flaw of that view is that it focuses us on the bullshit. I would much rather everyone just ignore stupid posts. Discussion on the board is much better when people engage the best arguments, not the worst ones.
I also do not agree that this board is especially unfair or disrespectful. Here’s a challenge. Go spend some time on conservative message boards, such as they are, advocating liberal beliefs. NRO comment threads, Free Republic, etc. Then come back and tell me how close-minded the SDMB is.
I will say this to both sides:
If you use the term “liberal” or “conservative”, in general you are already not really talking about the facts of an issue.
There are pros and cons to unions as well as pros and cons to unfettered corporate freedom. There is a very interesting debate to figure out how to take valuable pieces of both sides of the issue to create a system that is both competitive internationally and at the same time ensuring that there is a healthy middle class with a good standard of living.
The original story posted by Bricker would definitely have been in the “con” side for the unions (and there is currently a long list of those cons in my opinion), but I didn’t really see any attempt at analyzing the pros and cons, it just looked like a “see your side sucks” kind of thing.
I agree with your “of course” and your “insane and wrong”, but not your “everyone already knows to be true”.
In fact, I would estimate that 75% of the posters to this thread are in denial about this very matter.
I do agree with those who say if you’re a conservative and post on this board you’ve got to be prepared to take some abuse. But there’s no great harm in pointing to this issue every once in a while either.
What evidence do you offer for this ridiculous claim? A lot of what’s going on is that weak-sauce evidence is brought up for it, and the weak-sauce evidence gets attacked as low-hanging fruit, to mix my metaphors.
If you ask me, of course folks tend to react differently to those they agree with than to those they disagree with. That’s probably the first time I’ve said so on this thread, but only because it’s such a foolish thing to even be talking about.
Bricker, I wanna come back to your asking me about Stickler’s quote. That question is part of the problem.
I asked you about Rand’s stupid claim because you posted what appeared to be a Socratic defense of it. Until you did that, you had no responsibility for his words, and it would have been ridiculous for me to ask you to take a stand on them. The mere fact that you and he both ticked the same box in the polling booth in no way obligates you to defend his stupidity.
But you asked me to take a stance on Inner Stickler’s post, even though I’d said nothing about it up to that point. That’s ridiculous. There’s no collective responsibility for words. Stickler is responsible for what he (?) says; I’m responsible for what I say.
If you spent more time taking responsibility for your words, and less time trying to make Jim and Sarah responsible for Alice and John’s words, there’d be no problem here.