“The unprincipled pathways of your mind” Wasn’t that the theme song from the Thomas Crown Affair?
I’ve just started reading the thread, but, Chefguy, consider that phrase throroughly stolen.
Did I say that? I know it’s too much to actually ask to read for comprehension.
And now Bricker has flat out lied in GD. I can’t say that there, but I will here.
This is an outright lie. He deliberately creates the narrative that the Democrats removed the Special Prosecutor due to Ken Star. He is selectively ignoring facts to create a false narrative.
And, like a lawyer creating a false narrative for cross, deliberately leaving out things and hoping the other side doesn’t catch it, he uses it for his summation:
That’s flat out making up bullshit to attack someone. The original question says nothing at all like this. It’s creating a narrative that the OP is either an idiot or a liar.
This is why I have my problem with Bricker’s integrity. Someone with integrity does not use these manipulative tricks. They are lying.
As I’ve noted before, you’re at your most ridiculous when you think you’ve found a gotcha.
Is this really how you plan to spend your twilight years?
It would help to know which GD thread you’re talking about, and… gods, my eyes glaze over whenever I try to read BigT zzzzzz
Great fundraising idea for the Straight Dope: commission sculptures of leading Dopers made from poop (suitably lacquered for longevity).
Who wouldn’t want a Bricker poop statue on their mantel? Or one of elucidator, Snowboarder Bo or other famous Dopers (too modest to suggest myself)?
It’s not like Poop Art isn’t already widely accepted by the cognoscenti.
Click on the little arrow next to the username. Cleverly hidden, it is.
This cite seems to indicate he is correct.
So may I kindly suggest “Shut up, BigTard!!”
Did your cite happen to mention who had control over the house of representatives at that time?
It does seem a bit disingenuous to blame the lack of renewal on the party that did not have the power to renew the provision.
This cite indicates it had bipartisan support.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/special-prosecutors-political-history-235610
How dare you denigrate BigT. I’ll let you know he is consistently ridiculous, there is no least or most about it.
Republicans have their moments. They are moments.
First, republicans were in control of both house and senate, so it was in fact up to them, with or without democratic support. If it had been passed through congress, and Clinton vetoed it, you’d have a point there.
Second, republicans have always been against the special prosecutor bill, seeing as how it took down one of their own. Using it to harm the democrats managed to get some number of democrats to agree that it was something that could be abused, so they were amenable to letting it go.
Point is, it was opposed by republicans, and canceled by republicans. If the shenanigans involved in the kenn starr debacle managed to get enough democrats to not strenuously object doesn’t mean it was a democratic idea to get rid of it, which is bricker’s implication.
Bricker was trying to imply that it was the democrats who got rid of it after the investigations into clinton, and therefore, have no one but themselves to blame for the lack of a special prosecutor now, but that rather disingenuous implication is false.
Thing about implications is, they can’t really be proven false.
Kind of like the one-line turds that you crap into so many threads and that so seldom get any kind of response at all.
IOW, “ur stoopid derp derp derp”. Yet again.
Tick.
Yes, obviously this *is *how you’re going to spend your free time, now copious since no one wants you around their children anymore. You’re going to spend it going on the internet to tell strangers they’re stupid.