Well…it claimed that the “1.3 billion will go into health-care consumers’ pockets” business was a self-serving administration lie. But that might be splitting hairs, and I’d just as soon not do that. I do think Bricker was out of line; I also think that Shayna’s response to his later clarifications, in which she calls him a troll, are off-base.
I don’t believe it is, actually. A classic ad hominem, and in fact the “very definition of an ad hominem” is if you attack the “man” to undermine their argument.
That isn’t what happened here. Based on an incorrect piece of information, Shayna said something false–that employers were required to pass on rebates to the individual employees. So when Bricker brought up the issue of bias, unless I’m confused about the chronology, it was after Shayna’s point on this matter was totally disproven factually. Her assertion was factually, conclusively false. Bricker’s post was more in the form of “advice” to Shayna so that she could avoid bringing false information to the table in the future.
Now I’m not being deliberately obtuse, I don’t think Bricker was being some genuine nice guy to Shayna, but he was not attacking her bias to undermine her argument. Her argument was already undermined by the factually falsity of her claims, and he was just stating that her bias is why she is likely to do that, and gave her some advice to correct it in the future.
I don’t believe that Bricker was trolling in this instance.
- No it wasn’t. It still hasn’t been; rather, information has been added to the equation to show that maybe this isn’t something to crow so much about.
- “Advice”? Bullshit. Advice is something you give folks in hopes that they’ll listen and appreciate it, and Bricker is way too smart to think that anyone would be receptive to the “advice” in his post.
- No matter what, his first post in that thread did not serve to advance the discussion, as his posts in this thread have done.
So here’s what real advice looks like, to two posters whom I respect and enjoy reading.
Shayna, I’d suggest letting the snark and condescension roll off you, if possible, and address the meat of Bricker’s post; I think you’re giving what he says far too little credit. If he’s correct, if significant quantities of this money will go toward insurance-providing employers rather than toward individuals (who are by most understandings the real “health care consumers” inasmuch as they’re the ones with health to take care of), then Pelosi was at the very least putting a strong spin on this news, and it’s perfectly fair to bring it up in response.
Bricker, I’d suggest you refrain from echo-chamber comments in GD. Especially when you could be making meaty points instead.
Neither of these pieces of advice are guaranteed to be followed, natch ;), but they’re meant sincerely.
Fish gotta swim; birds gotta fly.
Shayna, quite obnoxiously acted like a jackass when telling me I was wrong about employers not being required to pass on the rebate. The fact is, employers are not required to pass the rebate straight back to the consumer, period. We’ve cited the statute itself, any claims to the contrary are not based in fact and are plain wrong. Period.
Don’t get so emotional. You are clearly over-reacting.
Getting back to the title of this page, I have to say I disagree. I think Bricker brings a lot to the board and he’s not a jackass. He argues issues in a legalistic fashion, but that’s his training.
As for the actual details of the GD thead, the rebuttals here, the rejoinders, the sur-rebuttals, and so on, I’ve found them entertaining, in a “slow down to watch the first responders at the accident” kind of way.
Ahem. Jackass Extraordinaire, Esquire. 
He’s much better than that…ah, I see what you did :eek:
That one is classic. I hope Bricker doesnt mind if I use that one.
There are times when the ignore function should be used. If you think bricker is a fucking asshole, just put him on your ignore list. I do and I did. I’d love to have the time that he does to do hours of research into case law to defend every one of my arguments but even if I did, I wouldn’t. I’d just love to have the free time that he does. He’s a right winger who is able to quote the law to match his right wing agenda. If he had a left wing agenda, he could do the same. It doesn’t interest me in the least to take that approach, I’m more interested in policies that do public good than in constructing hyper-technical screeds about whether something is or isn’t legal. If he gets you that worked up, just ignore him. Life is too short to waste on the likes of him.
While sometime inappropriate, more times than not it’s because someone introduces the idea that “x” is illegal and the person should be prosecuted. In that case, an actual understanding of the law is essential to the argument.
Don’t you think his training includes grasping the distinction between advocacy and analysis? He habitually presents the one to us as if it were the other, as you know and as he most certainly knows. That is the central reason for his reputation for dishonesty. If it were mere prickishness, well, that’s just life.
Further proof that your kind are the real haters.
Bullshit. We’re talking about a guy who as a public defender, never thought he had an innocent client. Now that there’s a guy who admits to shooting and killing an unarmed black minor, he turns into Perry Fucking Mason looking for any way to construe the evidence to make him appear not guilty. Why? Because it fits his right wing extremist agenda. Others may have the patience for his little pissant games of endlessly parsing words until his opponent wears himself out, but not me. He’s just a condescending little douche with a political compass that points in the wrong direction.
Because liberals are supposed to be tolerant of anything and everything that is done to them? They’re supposed to roll over and take it, otherwise they’re “haters”?
I hate to tell you this, Bob, but if you think Zimmerman is guilty, then it’s your political bias that is blinding you from the facts in the case. He may well be guilty, but the prosecutor is going to have a very difficult job proving that. My money would be on a jury acquitting Zimmerman.
Yes, he shot the kid. But that’s not the question before the court. The question before the court is whether or not he broke the law. That’s for a jury to decide. And one thing about Bricker, is that if the jury finds him guilty, he won’t say he isn’t. Only the jury can decide that.
U Mad Bro?
Seems to me your hate is fueled by your political agenda.
And when I was a public defender… I also looked for any way I could to construe the evidence to make my clients appear not guilty.
And I was often successful.