There are two modes by which we might view any issue:
[ul][li] (1) A way which combines morality, common-sense and reason to reach a correct answer, the “whole truth.”[/li][li] (2) A hyper-legalistic way which might work against a judge or jury, especially if a witness is particularly stupid.[/li][/ul]
If Bricker consistently adopted mode (2), he would have a function. We could turn to him when we wanted a legalistic view, e.g. if a health or environment advocate were preparing a court case.
The problem is that Bricker cheerfully bounces between modes 1 and 2, depending on whichever suits his obnoxious right-wing views in the issue at hand. The one constant is his holier-than-thou attitude, condemning mode 2 when he’s temporarily in mode 1, and vice versa.
A sad thing is that one often detects a glimmer of rationality and candor in his posts. For example, he is not wrong when he blathers “How about if it costs 17 trillion dollars to save a citizen’s life. … should he still get free care? Hunh? Hunh? Hunh?” But the obnoxious holier-than-thou attitude is constant, making it hard to like him even when he’s right. I’d put him on ignore but, frankly, he’s become one of the more amusing animals in the zoo for me.
This could have been written by the Brick. When he’s wrong … it’s still the other guy’s fault. :dubious:
The right wing has many ilks. Mace is of a different faction than the Brick, and somewhat more intelligent; but the underlying ethos is still the same. Our side? Passion. Your side? Anger.
OK, just to clarify this whole motherfucking question. If I say I’m masturbating like a motherfuck, thats a simile, right? Its not in the accusative tense, saying that I am a motherfucker, only like a motherfucker. So unless I report myself, it doesn’t go on my permanent record?
Damn you! You killed it with the “</sarcasm>” tag. I was chuckling inwardly at your spot-on impersonation of Bricks. I swear, you could burn down an orphanage, and he would dredge up some obscure case law from 1918 that deemed in in some cases it may be technically legal to do so, as if that were some defense against “Dude, don’t burn down orphanages.” Dude is an asshole who can’t see the forest for the mothergoddamn trees.
But is the grammar calender doing *its *job? Booyah! Sorry, had to be done. Please love me.
A+
So Shayna, I think you’re a nice lady and all, but can you please let up on the rampant bolding and capitalization? You probably don’t care at all about making my day, but if you did, I’m just saying that would be how to go about it.
I’m not seeing this at all. I mean, bricker should have posted the relevant part of the law in the first place, but if you want an argument over what the law says, you should start with what the law says. Also, “someone who often agrees with you on certain issues says it’s true, therefore it you must acknowledge it is true” is a pretty bad argument. If we’ve established that Mark Halperin is a hack, why the hell would anything he says be given credence?
So this is what should have gone in GD, IMO, rather than the psychoanalysis of Shayna’s echo-chamber malfunction.
Given this post (and the ones leading up to it), it seems to me that you’re making a fair criticism of the law, and a fair rebuttal to Shayna’s GD OP. Shayna, what say you?
Where were you when I asked for a similar analysis on the faces of PBS? Perhaps you didn’t get a chance to see it before the debate/opinions were stifled.
