Emphasis mine.
I think Bricker assumed that there would be at least a few people who read GD regularly, would be familiar with both issues, and would recognize the parallel he was trying to draw.
And if someone was NOT familiar with Bricker’ s allusion, then they were just SOL and it was their own fault, right?
That’s a lot to ask of a reader. The merits of rhetoric aside, it’s always best to speak plainly. Especially when, as it seems is the case here, there is a history of misunderstandings.
This is from the perspective of an obligate lurker, who may or may not have the time to keep abreast of every GD discussion, and may lack a certain familiarity with Bricker’s (or any other poster’s) debating style. Is such a perspective valid? Should a GD reader be assumed to be a keen habitue?
and breaks down when there are extenuating factors. One of them brought up in the course of the thread (discretionary application of the law). The other is whether the current Congress is the best arbiter of legal matters.
Nothing stops you from drawing that distinction once the magician pulls the rabbit from the hat. If the rabbit doesn’t come out, it won’t matter anyway.
He’s invoked such a description for himself several times (here for instance).
That’s him saying that he’s conservative in comparison to Reagan, who he is characterizing as a “statist reactionary.”
He is not calling himself a conservative in the way that the word is commonly used in modern American political discourse. In fact, his whole point is that the modern use of the word is inaccurate, and that many modern 'conservatives" are, in fact, radically reactionary in the political outlook. He argues in the article you link that 1980s conservatives sought to use the state in the service of their interests, rather than keep the state out of the lives of citizens, and he sees this as a non-conservative position.
I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, but calling him a “self-described conservative” is a little dishonest if you don’t make clear what the context is. When asked what his political position is, Chomsky’s most common response is that he is a “libertarian socialist” or anarchist.
Here’s another instance of him calling himself a conservative. He does define the term differently than most though.
Hey look a bump.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=822264&page=4
This thread really does display all the ways in which Bricker is just an infuriating tosser. Can’t acknowledge the blatantly obvious without having it spoonfed to him, insists on diversions in attempts to trap liberals and show them being hypocritical, as if anyone gave a shit or it was in any way relevant to the discussion, and just all-around sophistry. Buddy, we all know you know the answer. Stop fucking asking us and just make your goddamn point. Are you seriously autistic? Because if so, I apologize, and everything makes a lot more sense. Otherwise, yeah, this is why people hate you.
Which part of the (4 page) linked thread pushed you over the edge enough to revive a 5 year old pit thread? I’m just curious.
Any Republican who didn’t vote for Trump can’t be all bad.
Two words: Socratic Method. It’s a lawyer thing.
I’ve taken to amusing myself in that thread by using Socratic irony ironically.
Too much Socratic Method has been known to encourage people to join the Hemlock Society.
Have you?
Well, would it also help to be Jewish since it trains one to answer a question with a question?
This pitting was inane from the start. The years have not changed that. Bricker is an asset to the board. Do we really need to see everything through the distorting lens of partisan politics?
Does it?
You have to ask?
Why not?