Bricker, Here Are A Couple Of Bozos Who Are Right Up Your Alley

[tdn]

@RTFirefly

Bricker, you know how you always get peeved when posters here at the SDMB say someone should be thrown in jail, and you get all nitpicky about “what statute do you think they broke? what’s your evidence that they violated it?”

Then you should be pretty pissed at these guys.

Because they’re not just a coupla guys on a message board. One’s governor of Louisiana, and the other’s Speaker of the House of Representatives. If we ought to know better, then these guys ought to know way better. In spades. Doubled, redoubled, raised to slam, and doubled and redoubled again.

Jindal:

Boehner:

Like I said, these are high public officials, whose jobs are writing the laws (Boehner) and executing the laws of the state of Louisiana (Jindal). Their jobs are rather intimately connected with laws. They presumably know a lot more about the laws than do random bozos on a message board. And yet…

So, Bricker, I hope you’re absolutely incensed with these guys, and wonder what the devil the voters and their party are doing, trusting them with high office, when they fail a test about the law that you think random bozos on a message board ought to pass.

Yeah, I remember my first beer.

[John_Mace]

@Ludovic

I think the weakness is part of the point. Said poster whose name I will not repeat would sometimes say “hey, those random other people over there, why aren’t you complaining about them? Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?” So RT doing the same thing is part of the gotcha ya.

I love the smell of tu qupque in the morning. Smells like defeat!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Ludovic

I think the weakness is part of the point. Said poster whose name I will not repeat would sometimes say “hey, those random other people over there, why aren’t you complaining about them? Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?” So RT doing the same thing is part of the gotcha ya.

Bricker generally waits until other people are bitching about things before asking why they aren’t bitching about other things. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t commented much in any of the IRS threads. In any event, neither Jindal nor Boehner have named names. Saying that people who are guilty of doing something should go to jail is rather different from saying X person is guilty of something.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Bricker generally waits until other people are bitching about things before asking why they aren’t bitching about other things. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t commented much in any of the IRS threads. In any event, neither Jindal nor Boehner have named names. Saying that people who are guilty of doing something should go to jail is rather different from saying X person is guilty of something.

And note that Jindal’s quote didn’t just say they should go to jail (emphasis added)

…jail time for Internal Revenue Service officials who engaged in improper targeting…

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

Is the OP suggesting that there’s no potential criminal law that could have been violated here?

Thank you. You have provided the appropriate standard to apply, the next time you play your usual game. So I assume you won’t be playing it anymore.

I think I’m done here.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

Thank you. You have provided the appropriate standard to apply, the next time you play your usual game. So I assume you won’t be playing it anymore.

I think I’m done here.

A wise move, but did you really have to dig the hole a little deeper before you decided to stop digging?

[Loach]

@RTFirefly

Thank you. You have provided the appropriate standard to apply, the next time you play your usual game. So I assume you won’t be playing it anymore.

I think I’m done here.

I guess you are saying there is no possible way that there is any criminal law that was violated. Obviously there would be no reason for anyone to plead the 5th then.

[MsWhatsit]

@John_Mace

I love the smell of tu qupque in the morning. Smells like defeat!

Mmmm qupquekes.

[scabpicker]

@Ludovic

I think the weakness is part of the point. Said poster whose name I will not repeat would sometimes say “hey, those random other people over there, why aren’t you complaining about them? Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?” So RT doing the same thing is part of the gotcha ya.

Well, if that’s part of the artwork, then it’s part of the artwork. I’m not sure it makes it any better. It’s pretty lame when almost anyone does it.

[The_Second_Stone]

I’d say that Jindal and Boehner’s analyses are slicker than snot on teflon during an earthquake, but nobody expects the Spanish InquisBenghazi!

[Astroboy14]

@Trinopus

Bricker exhibits noisome pedantic rhetorical behavior, dictionary games, sliding between technical language and commonplace language, etc. And he has really bad breath, too.)

And his mother dresses him funny!

[Gangster_Octopus]

@Bricker

Is the OP suggesting that there’s no potential criminal law that could have been violated here?

Or that the complained-of conduct was not violative of those laws?

Or that there’s yet to be a trial?

If you narrow down the gibbering, I might could have some comment.

Aha! Busted!

[doorhinge]

@RTFirefly

Thank you. You have provided the appropriate standard to apply, the next time you play your usual game. So I assume you won’t be playing it anymore.

I think I’m done here.

You were done when you posted your pointless OP.

Before you can find a person guilty in a court of law, there has to be a violation of some existing statute. Them’s the rules.

Jindal and Boehner stated that whomever violate the law should go to jail/prison. There still has to be an investigation and then a trial.

If you demand that someone should go to jail, it’s not unreasonable to ask you what statute you think that person violated or how you think that person violated a statute. Arguing that a particular “someone” should go to prison BECAUSE RTFirefly says so wouldn’t even be allowed in court as evidence.

[doorhinge]

@Gangster_Octopus

Aha! Busted!

Does that mean you can’t answer the questions, either?

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Ravenman

Jesus, Firefly, get a fucking life.

This is his life. Sitting in front of the computer masturbating like a motherfuck thinking, “OH YEAH! OH YEAH! I REALLY GOT BRICKER THIS TIME! FUCK ME THIS IS SO AWESOME! OH YEAH! OH YEAH!” and splooge, “Oh yeah, that was so awesome. Now I’m off to beat my wife and kids and then rape the dog.”

I mean, it’s not what I’d consider a good life but to each their own.

[kaylasdad99]

@doorhinge

Jindal and Boehner stated that whomever violate the law should go to jail/prison. There still has to be an investigation and then a trial.

The quotes I’ve read from Jindal appear to entitle him to your defense; Boehner, not so much.

He didn’t actually stipulate that criminal activity had been established as having taken place, or that such needed to be established. His quote just reads: [

@John Boehner

“My question isn’t about who is going to resign. My question is who’s going to jail over this scandal?”

](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boehner-on-irs-whos-going-to-jail-over)

[BigT]

Any statement of “They should go to jail” has one of two implicit arguments behind it. Either they should go to jail “if what they did was illegal” or they should go to jail “because what they did should be illegal.”

It just would be nice if Bricker would figure that out. He seems so close!

[magellan01]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Bricker generally waits until other people are bitching about things before asking why they aren’t bitching about other things. As far as I can tell, he hasn’t commented much in any of the IRS threads. In any event, neither Jindal nor Boehner have named names. Saying that people who are guilty of doing something should go to jail is rather different from saying X person is guilty of something.

I was going to say the same thing. But now that it’s been said, I don’t have to.

Hey, RTFirefly, :rolleyes:.

[Bricker]

@BigT

Any statement of “They should go to jail” has one of two implicit arguments behind it. Either they should go to jail “if what they did was illegal” or they should go to jail “because what they did should be illegal.”

It just would be nice if Bricker would figure that out. He seems so close!

What the hell phrase does someone use if they wish to to convey “They should go to jail because they actually did something that’s actually illegal?”

I nominate: They should go to jail - for realsies!

[Clothahump]

@Drunky_Smurf

This is his life. Sitting in front of the computer masturbating like a motherfuck thinking, “OH YEAH! OH YEAH! I REALLY GOT BRICKER THIS TIME! FUCK ME THIS IS SO AWESOME! OH YEAH! OH YEAH!” and splooge, “Oh yeah, that was so awesome. Now I’m off to beat my wife and kids and then rape the dog.”

Shouldn’t that be “burn the dog”?