Holy shit, is this thing still going on? I’ve been luxuriating in the turquoise waters of the Turks & Caicos Islands in the Caribbean for the past week. I thought for sure this horse would be dead by now. Y’all sure do know how to keep the pot boiling, don’t you.
Should I bother getting back up to speed? Nah. I’m too happy and relaxed. Carry on.
That’s a good thing since you started off bat shit crazy and unbalanced. I hope you received some mental health services while you were in the Caribbean.
When you bump it 31 hours after the last post, I think the appropriate saying about the pot also involves the kettle.
What’s dishonest about it?
This time he *admitted *trolling (post 27). Can’t you fucking read for content? :rolleyes:
I thought Brickers pitting schedule was every three months, this revival is early.
This was 'admitted trolling" to you? Or am I having a whoosh moment?
No. The explanation is that ElvisL1ves is an idiot.
He admitted to attempting to draw a connection between his hypothetical and Obama’s decision to not deport certain people. Then, when it was pointed out that there was an important distinction between the two which he was missing, he changed his mind.
Which part of that was trolling?
Whoosh. Unless you don’t think that posting something solely in the hopes of getting a reaction, or springing a gotcha, not in the interest of actually discussing a topic, counts as trolling. Note that at no time did Bricker ever offer a view of his own on the topic he purported to be interested in. In Post 27, he actually acknowledged that he was trying yet again for a “Look at the liberal hypocrisy!” moments that have become his sole purpose for being on this board at all.
If you want to call that something other than trolling, what do you propose instead?
Does he ever? I can’t remember a thread he’s started stating his own opinion in the OP
He seemed pretty happy the SEIU lost their SCOTUS case. I think he even said “yippee.”
He will on the now-rare occasions when he’s not actually going for a juvenile gotcha. This was not one, nor was it atypical.
The multiple people who’ve chided him lately along the lines of “You’re better than this” are unfortunately arguing against the evidence.
I think it’s a childish habit and if it’s not trolling, it skates very close to the line. If we take the many times he’s started threads like this, I think a good case could be made for trolling. Anyone want to indict and prosecute?
Against the great Bricker? Somehow I see a 30 pages thread on the definition of trolling.
It’d be a total waste of the prosecutors time, stick indicting the easily identifiable trolls imho.
Which, I should state, are the occasions when he’s going for a juvenile neener-neener instead.
Here are some reminders:
I am not understanding what you object to. The clear purpose of that hypo was to ask whether the principle used by the President to nullify the effects of a part of immigration law could be applied elsewhere.
How is that anything close to trolling?
When Justice Kennedy asks during oral argument if the Commerce Clause means that the government could ban broccoli, is he trolling? Of course not: he’s crafting a hypothetical that explores the limits and natural consequences of a given proposition.
I am absolutely baffled, and disturbed, by your reaction. There are a bunch of idiots here who simply attack anything I say. Their opinions are useless.
You don’t fall into that category at all, and I’m genuinely disturbed to see this reaction from you.
Bricker, speaking as someone who’s not infrequently on the opposite side of a given issue from you, I agree you’re not shy about expressing your point of view in your OP’s, although you are quite fond of coyness in your argumentative structures. (By which I mean you’re no stranger to the rhetorical “gotcha” device.)
But IMHO it would behoove you, I think, to remember late, unlamented SDMB poster december, and the ‘last straw’ which precipitated his/her banishment. I agree with John Mace that you’re skating quite close to the same line.