# Bricker, You're a Jackass Extraordinaire **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 12, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734 "2012-05-12T23:13:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/301 "2012-06-23T04:09:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What did you think the analogy was when you read the OP? I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo’s tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was– **because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece**. Now your turn: why won’t you lay out your argument clearly in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/302 "2012-06-23T06:39:23Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo’s tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was– **because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece**. > > Now your turn: why won’t you lay out your argument clearly in the OP? I did not read that piece, but I immediately recognized the argument Bricker was making, and thought it was extremely obvious. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/303 "2012-06-23T06:55:31Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Seriously, just who in the bloody hell do you think you are? > > You prance around here with your holier-than-thou attitude as if you are _so_ above the fray, when in fact you are one of the dirtiest motherfuckers that I’ve ever encountered. > > [A Bricker Post - See OP] > > Hey, SHIT-FOR-BRAINS, I SPELLED THE SOURCE OUT RIGHT THERE FOR YOUR TINY LITTLE PEA-NEURON TO SEE. Since the hell when did CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST MARK HALPERIN at The Page become a fucking “echo chamber that reinforces my view,” you cumwad? > > As for your guess-hazarding, _I_ guess that’s proof enough right there how fucking wrong you are about me and my reading habits. > > Besides the fact, the person you _should_ have been attacking was the fucking _source_ of the information if they in fact got it wrong. Excuse the fuck out of me for relying upon one of YOUR GUYS for truth and accuracy. You can bet your sweet ass I won’t be making _that_ mistake again! > > Jesus you make me sick. > > Asshole. I don’t post in Pit often, but I’d just like to say that I think **Bricker** is a great contributor to _ **any** _ thread. He’s not always correct, but _ **always** _ elevates a thread’s content and he’s very often a good contributor and not a "guess-hazarding…cumwad… " If he makes you mad, just point out why he’s wrong, very clearly. It takes time and thoughtful effort, but hopefully that’s what this board is about. It can be done. I haven’t read the thread, but I’m guessing the OP has been cleared up somewhat? (WAG?) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/304 "2012-06-23T11:40:27Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo’s tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was– **because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece**. I didn’t recognize the source because I don’t waste my precious time on this earth on his hateful partisan yammerings. But that actually makes it _worse_, doesn’t it? This latest gotcha attempt wasn’t even original - \*\*Bricker \*\*simply \*plagiarized \*it. Two levels of dishonesty for the price of one. Not that the realization of even one of them inhibits the dwindling few here who haven’t yet caught on to his act from lauding his “contributions” here. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > it is, of course, ridiculous to call your posts in that thread “trolling.” You can say that right after explaining in detail how it was simply an attempt at drawing a reaction, not a sincere attempt to explore a topic? Really? If that’s not trolling, what word \*would \*you use? :dubious: > [@Bricker](#): > > Can you explain the possible gotcha here? I simply don’t see it. If you’re going to lie like that, at least try harder to make it convincing. Or you could accept responsibility for it; that would be even better, if not to be expected. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/305 "2012-06-23T12:18:58Z")
While I will not retract my earlier comments, I will add that I both like and respect **Bricker**. I don’t always agree with his positions, and I don’t like this particular tactic, but he brings a lot more to the table than most around here. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/306 "2012-06-23T12:53:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo’s tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was– **because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece**. > > Now your turn: why won’t you lay out your argument clearly in the OP? Because I thought it was blatantly obvious. Because I would be stunned to discover any actively participating GD member read my post and did not understand it. Because “right thing to do” in connection with Obama’s immigration decision was been dominating the headlines. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/307 "2012-06-23T13:01:36Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > While I will not retract my earlier comments, I will add that I both like and respect **Bricker**. I don’t always agree with his positions, and I don’t like this particular tactic, but he brings a lot more to the table than most around here. Which is to say: Yes, I agree he is one jackass extraordinaire, who unfortunately lines up with me ideologically. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/308 "2012-06-23T14:35:11Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Which is to say: Yes, I agree he is one jackass extraordinaire, who unfortunately lines up with me ideologically. Don’t put words in my mouth, numbnuts. I said I don’t don’t like this particular tactic–the “gotcha” style of argument. Nothing more, nothing less. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/309 "2012-06-23T15:08:24Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Don’t put words in my mouth, numbnuts. I said I don’t don’t like this particular tactic–the “gotcha” style of argument. Nothing more, nothing less. Still, one would have to wonder if Bricker’s style of pompous douchebaggery would sit so well with you if he didn’t align with your ideological stances. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/310 "2012-06-23T15:52:35Z")
**Bricker** ’s style sits fine with me, and I’m hardly ideologically aligned with the counselor. What grates is his emphases on the legality of actions over their consequences, on the ideologically theoretical over the demonstrable actual, on the propriety of behavior over its wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/311 "2012-06-23T17:18:27Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Don’t put words in my mouth, numbnuts. I said I don’t don’t like this particular tactic–the “gotcha” style of argument. Nothing more, nothing less. If you “don’t don’t like” \*\*Bricker’s \*\*schtick, that means you like it, right? GOTCHA!! ETA: I forgot–numbnuts. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/312 "2012-06-23T17:31:46Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > Which is to say: Yes, I agree he is one jackass extraordinaire, who unfortunately lines up with me ideologically. And yet **Bricker** does not line up with me ideologically at all; we’re miles apart on heaps of issues. But i feel pretty much the same way about him as **Oakminster** does. Why can’t you accept that it’s possible to have disagreements with someone, and even to think that they can be a douche at times, while also being willing to acknowledge that they might bring something of value to the conversation? I’m not saying you have to like **Bricker**. If you do think he’s a “jackass extraordinaire,” that’s your right. But you’re being disingenuous in your interpretation of **Oakminster** ’s comments here. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/313 "2012-06-23T17:38:23Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Why can’t you accept that it’s possible to have disagreements with someone, and even to think that they can be a douche at times, while also being willing to acknowledge that they might bring something of value to the conversation? I can accept that. It would be much more convincing, however, coming from someone who did not align with **Bricker** ’s ideology, is all. Something like “a statement against interests” is what I’d find assuring–\*\*Oakminster’s \*\*statement mitigating **Bricker** ’s excesses is a statement supporting his own interests. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/314 "2012-06-23T17:40:03Z")
My ideology- such as it is- is generally opposed to **Bricker** ’s. Will I do? > [@Oakminster](#): > > While I will not retract my earlier comments, I will add that I both like and respect **Bricker**. I don’t always agree with his positions, and I don’t like this particular tactic, but he brings a lot more to the table than most around here. I don’t really see why it’s an objectionable practice. Yeah, it’s kind of annoying, on some level, but it’s a pretty good way of getting people to see positions they hold in a different light. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/315 "2012-06-23T17:46:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I read the Krauthammer piece you presumably also read (unless John Yoo’s tenuous analogy is making the rounds among the right at large), so I knew what the analogy was– **because Krauthammer spelled it out in his piece**. > > Now your turn: why won’t you lay out your argument clearly in the OP? :rolleyes: 1. Bricker’s argument was blatantly obvious. 2. Since when has anyone in GD laid out an argument clearly? I’d say less than 5% of posts (including OPs) in GD lay out an argument for any position. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/316 "2012-06-23T18:04:42Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > I can accept that. It would be much more convincing, however, coming from someone who did not align with **Bricker** ’s ideology, is all. Count me there–other than disagreeing with **Bricker** on substance more often than **Oakminster** does, I agree with almost everything he wrote. As such, I think your implication that **Oakminster’s** position must be due to bias says a lot more about you than about him. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/317 "2012-06-23T19:30:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > I didn’t recognize the source because I don’t waste my precious time on this earth on [**Bricker** ’s] hateful partisan yammerings. Are there any conservatives here whom you don’t feel are scumbags of some stripe? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/318 "2012-06-23T19:35:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Count me there–other than disagreeing with **Bricker** on substance more often than **Oakminster** does, I agree with almost everything he wrote. As such, I think your implication that **Oakminster’s** position must be due to bias says a lot more about you than about him. And what does it say that I find your admiration for **Bricker** far more convincing than I find **Oakminster** ’s? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/319 "2012-06-23T19:47:39Z")
> [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](#): > > And what does it say that I find your admiration for **Bricker** far more convincing than I find **Oakminster** ’s? I dunno, but I think it says that you base your admiration of people substantially on whether you agree with their positions, rather than on their behavior, and so you assume that everyone else must do the same. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734/320 "2012-06-23T22:40:00Z")
Well for what it’s worth here’s \*\*Oakminster \*\*'s contribution to ‘Do we need a businessman in the White House?’ > [@Do we need a businessman in the White House?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-need-a-businessman-in-the-white-house/626045/2): > > That’s right. Obama is the fucking Messiah and all who oppose Him are evil. Second verse, same as the first. > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-youre-a-jackass-extraordinaire/621734.md?page=17)