Bricker is a Pile of Shit Sculpted into Human Shape

I direct you to post #168 for the context of what he’s responding to, and post #170 for his response.

If you’re not up to following a link, Budget Player Cadet rightfully calls out Shodan’s bullshit quote reproduced here :

Wherein Shodan, well-established piece of shit, implies that Anita Hill was lying about Clarence Thomas. Bricker, Excrement Esquire, is not to be outdone, though, responding to BPC’s callout thusly :

Explicitly confirming that he thinks Anita Hill was A.) lying and B.) operating as a pawn of the Democratic Party. Despite supporting witnesses, and a passed polygraph.

Screw you, you partisan hack.

Sorry - are you pitting Bricker or Shodan here? It’s not clear.

Also, 1) my interpretation of Bricker’s comment was that the focus on Hill ultimately resulted in Thomas (who IMO is vastly underqualified for the job and might otherwise have floundered) getting confirmed, which he sees as a plus.

And 2) doesn’t Bricker already have a live Pit thread?

  1. is how I understood it as well.

My apologies for not believing the woman. We all know that [del]Juanita Broadderick Paula Jones Kathleen Wiley[/del] Anita Hill should be assumed to be truthful, without evidence and even if their witnesses contradict themselves. After all, why would they lie? Especially since we all know that black men can’t control their sexual urges.

The scales have fallen from my eyes. Anyone who accuses a black man of sexual harassment is Speaking the Truth to Power.


What’s really important is to point out any possibility of hypocrisy, even if no liberal posters brought up Clinton’s accusers (or they had any relevance to the discussion). Anita Hill may or may not have been lying… but she was definitely lying, and Democrats are hypocrites.

Or something.

Bricker is a thoughtful, erudite and interesting poster. The OP is a toddler whose mommy stepped out for a smoke and who got hold of her laptop.

Especially since post 168 is not even on the thread page s/he linked to, its here.

I like Bricker (and Shodan, too, by the way) even though I sometimes find them obnoxious (and even more often find them wrong), and I think they contribute to the board.

I just wish that Shodan would stop signing off every post with

In my head, you sound like that asshole, Jeanine Pirro.

Stool Solicitor? Manure Mouthpiece? Ordure Procurator?

C’mon, you’ve barely scratched the surface here.

This isn’t true.

Anally-produced advocate.
Coprolith counselor.
Barrister a la butthole.
Night soil jurist
Poo proctor
Merdeber of the bar


It appears that there is a controllable setting for posts displayed per page. Mine is set to 40, which is, I believe, the default. But thanks to your ignorant twaddle, and misplaced “correction”, at least I am aware of the setting now. Kudos, you just increased your usefulness to the world at large by a thousand percent.

That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, sunk, and turned into a coral reef.

I really should’ve thought of Soilicitor. :smack:

Emphatically, Bricker. Shodan is beneath contempt, but Bricker, as someone who was nominally educated in a post-graduate institution, should know better.

And Bricker does have a revived zombie pit thread, but it’s a general pitting, I wanted to point out this specific bit of vileness on his part.

Sorry for the split follow-up, but I had to review the statements to try and see this interpretation, and I don’t. But, to clarify, your **charitable **interpretation of Bricker’s statement is that not only does he believe that she lied, and was pushed into it by the Democrats, but that he is **delighted **that both of those things happened?

I really don’t see how that mitigates what I said.

I agree. I’m still going to cosign this pitting, because being a good poster should not excuse you for taking a drubbing for saying something phenomenally stupid.

Really, there was a lot in that thread that was pitworthy. The Anita Hill bullshit, the distraction with Juanita Broderrick (because apparently there is literally never a time to not go fishing for liberal hypocrisy points, even if no hypocrisy is apparent and it has fucking nothing to do with the subject at hand), and of course his insistence that we explain to him like he’s five why there’s a difference between age and gender in how we deal with discrimination that went on well past the point it was funny and just started to be sad. I maintain that this shit would barely be excusable in a layperson who has some kind of mental disorder that hinders communication, let alone a fucking lawyer.

So your argument is that liberals are always accusing black people of crimes they didn’t commit. And conservatives are the ones who defend black people accused of crimes.

You might want to think about these things before posting them.