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.
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?)
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you “don’t don’t like” **Bricker’s **schtick, that means you like it, right? GOTCHA!!
ETA: I forgot–numbnuts.
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.
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.
My ideology- such as it is- is generally opposed to Bricker’s. Will I do?
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.
:rolleyes:
Bricker’s argument was blatantly obvious.
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.
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.
Are there any conservatives here whom you don’t feel are scumbags of some stripe?
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.
Well for what it’s worth here’s **Oakminster **'s contribution to ‘Do we need a businessman in the White House?’