Fucking Stupid Democrat Fraudulent Voters

[elucidator]

It should be noticed by the ruthlessly fair that Bricker did his best to bail out on that first quote, pretending that his words didn’t mean what they say, that he was not really talking about liberals depending on illegal votes, but only** Lobohan.**

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15208917

Post 669

…No, the ‘you’ in my sentence was just Lobohan; the pronoun was used in the specific and not the general sense. I think most of you – and you, specifically, elucidator, in my opinion – want no part of illegal votes, but regard the possibility of illegal votes as too remote as to to risk doing anything to stop them that would risk losing any legitimate votes…

Of course, the same ruthlessly fair minded person musts note that nowhere in the text does Bricker make this clear, he does not mention Lobohan. So, I guess we just make of that what we will.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Legislators vote for the text of a law. A hundred different representatives may favor the text for a hundred distinct reasons: one may be repaying a vote promise to a colleague from an unrelated earlier bill, one may be hoping it helps his party win, one may be hoping it helps his district. It’s utterly irrelevant: when the law passes, the questions is simply: what does it say? The motive of the legislators is simply not relevant in determining what a law does.

I love watching your semantic gymnastics when you try to deny the clear meaning of your own words. This is a triple back flip with a double twist and a face plant. Classic Bricker.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

It should be noticed by the ruthlessly fair that Bricker did his best to bail out on that first quote, pretending that his words didn’t mean what they say, that he was not really talking about liberals depending on illegal votes, but only** Lobohan.**

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15208917

Post 669

Of course, the same ruthlessly fair minded person musts note that nowhere in the text does Bricker make this clear, he does not mention Lobohan. So, I guess we just make of that what we will.

How about the fact that I was directly replying to Lobohan, and included the TEXT of his statement in the TEXT of my reply:

@Bricker

@Lobohan

The one where I’m a good human being, as opposed to you, an outright evil fake-Christian who Christ himself would have denounced.

I’ll note that you’re too much of a coward to answer the central point of my post. Your solution causes more damage than the problem. But that’s okay, because only poor people and Democrats are being hit.

Fucking fringe.

It’s my position that the solution creates a system whereby we can be confident that the votes cast are from legitimate voters. It’s my further opinion, just reached now, that this scares the shit out of you because you know how much the Democrats value illegal aliens’ and (where not permitted) convicted felons’ votes. In short, a Voter ID system scares you because you know that losing illegal votes hurts the Democrats.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I don’t have the energy

… to come up with an even superficially cogent argument.

I have been saying that the valid purpose of voter ID is building a framework that a allows criminal prosecution for months, in threads that you have been very active in.

Liar. You’ve been blathering on about the public’s confidence in the integrity of election results. Now you claim that prosecutions after the fact, and *not *correcting or preventing the fact, is what’s important. As if no one here has any attention span whatsoever.

And you think you’re providing an actual argument now. That’s not even insulting, just pathetic, you loser.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

I love watching your semantic gymnastics when you try to deny the clear meaning of your own words. This is a triple back flip with a double twist and a face plant. Classic Bricker.

No. My meaning is perfectly clear.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

How about the fact that I was directly replying to Lobohan, and included the TEXT of his statement in the TEXT of my reply:

Hogwash. The quoted text was post 643 (link already provided). Nowhere in that text do you make any reference to Lobohan You quote/reference Hentor and then fling Zell Miller at us in all his foam-flecked glory.

But no Lobohan.

[Lobohan]

*I feel a disturbance in the forum…
*
*Someone summons me?
*

Oh, it’s just Bricker being a dipshit. As you were.

[Sinaptics]

@gamerunknown

Tooting your own sonic screwdriver there, it seems.

Hey! I remember that! Still seems like a workable solution to me. Cheap and fairly easily implemented.

[elucidator]

Well, sure, if the intent were to actually prevent something that does not substantially exist, i.e., “voter fraud”. There are likely any number of such solutions, but they would not have the desired effect, they would only hinder “voter fraud”.

(Be advised, I use the word “intent” in the commonly accepted meaning, rather than the highly flexible manner of Brickerspeak…)

[Ibn_Warraq]

@elucidator

Well, sure, if the intent were to actually prevent something that does not substantially exist, i.e., “voter fraud”. There are likely any number of such solutions, but they would not have the desired effect, they would only hinder “voter fraud”.

(Be advised, I use the word “intent” in the commonly accepted meaning, rather than the highly flexible manner of Brickerspeak…)

Minor nitpick.

You mean “in person voter fraud” is quite rare.

[Kimstu]

@Bricker

It’s my further opinion, just reached now, that this scares the shit out of you because you know how much the Democrats value illegal aliens’ and (where not permitted) convicted felons’ votes.

:dubious: That’s your opinion? Wow.

Bricker, what is your estimate for the percentage of votes for Democratic candidates that are illegally cast, and on what data do you base that estimate?

[Lobohan]

@Kimstu

:dubious: That’s your opinion? Wow.

Bricker, what is your estimate for the percentage of votes for Democratic candidates that are illegally cast, and on what data do you base that estimate?

Bricker is okay with cheating to win. He assumes that Dems, on average, are no better than him.

He really has no idea that he’s an abnormally shitty person.

[septimus]

Bricker, you keep claiming that we misinterpret your views. Let me give you a chance to clarify your stance with a multiple-choice question.

We know, because you’ve told us, that in your opinion the GOP should do everything it can to suppress Democratic voters, as long as it commits no prosecutable crime. As a supporting argument, you claim the Democrats would or should reciprocate in states they control.

You do understand the concept of hypothetical questions. Let us stipulate, hypothetically, that the Democrat Party does not have scum of your persuasion and would not try to suppress GOP vote. With that stipulation, would you
[ul][li] (A) Continue to advocate suppression of Democratic vote, on the grounds that it is a party’s duty to advance itself as best it can legally.[/li][li] (B) Continue to advocate suppression of Democratic vote, on the grounds that electing GOP candidates is desirable.[/li][li] © Reject malicious voter suppression, because your advocacy was purely “tit-for-tat.”[/li][li] (D) Reject the hypothetical, on grounds that in the real world Democrats are as scummy as your own ilk.[/li][/ul]

Here’s your chance to set us all straight. Answer?

[Bricker]

@septimus

Bricker, you keep claiming that we misinterpret your views. Let me give you a chance to clarify your stance with a multiple-choice question.

We know, because you’ve told us, that in your opinion the GOP should do everything it can to suppress Democratic voters, as long as it commits no prosecutable crime. As a supporting argument, you claim the Democrats would or should reciprocate in states they control.

You do understand the concept of hypothetical questions. Let us stipulate, hypothetically, that the Democrat Party does not have scum of your persuasion and would not try to suppress GOP vote. With that stipulation, would you
[ul]
[li] (A) Continue to advocate suppression of Democratic vote, on the grounds that it is a party’s duty to advance itself as best it can legally.[/li][li] (B) Continue to advocate suppression of Democratic vote, on the grounds that electing GOP candidates is desirable.[/li][li] (C) Reject malicious voter suppression, because your advocacy was purely “tit-for-tat.”[/li][li] (D) Reject the hypothetical, on grounds that in the real world Democrats are as scummy as your own ilk.[/li][/ul]

Here’s your chance to set us all straight. Answer?

(E) Reject the hypothetical, because I never told you that that in my opinion the GOP should do everything it can to suppress Democratic voters, as long as it commits no prosecutable crime, nor do I believe that.

[septimus]

@Bricker

(E) Reject the hypothetical, because I never told you that that in my opinion the GOP should do everything it can to suppress Democratic voters, as long as it commits no prosecutable crime, nor do I believe that.

Here’s your assignment:

1. Locate one of the several Bricker posts which can be interpreted as described. This should be easy for you, using Google or SDMB’s own Search.

2. Explain why you think my interpretation of that post is false.

3. Disregarding whatever undotted i your nitpick is about, answer the original question.

Since I’m afraid you’re too dishonest or incompetent to locate a post satisfying (1), you may defer (2) until your choice for (1) is approved.

[Robot_Arm]

@septimus

Here’s your assignment:

1. Locate one of the several Bricker posts which can be interpreted as described. This should be easy for you, using Google or SDMB’s own Search.

2. Explain why you think my interpretation of that post is false.

Since I’m afraid you’re too dishonest or incompetent to locate a post satisfying (1), you may defer (2) until your choice for (1) is approved.

You are the one claiming he has said that; it’s your job to back it up.

[septimus]

@Robot_Arm

You are the one claiming he has said that; it’s your job to back it up.

“It’s my job?” :smack:

It’s part of Brickhead’s test. We know Brickhead pretty well. We’re trying to hold up a mirror so he can see himself.

[Robot_Arm]

@septimus

“It’s my job?” :smack:

Yes. When you say something, you’re the one who’s supposed to post evidence in support of it.

It’s part of Brickhead’s test. We know Brickhead pretty well. We’re trying to hold up a mirror so he can see himself.

Fine, knock yourself out, but I wouldn’t expect him to bring his own mirror.

[septimus]

Here’s a news story from 2008 in which the director of Montana’s GOP resigned after being condemned by a federal judge for vote-suppression. In this thread Bricker defended the GOP vigorously, implying that no legal means should be out of bounds to suppress Democrat vote; if Dems don’t like it, they should work to suppress GOP votes.

In my summary of Bricker’s philosophy I used the phrase “non-prosecutable” instead of “legal.” Is that the little nit Bricker has his panties twisted up about?

[Bricker]

@septimus

Here’s a news story from 2008 in which the director of Montana’s GOP resigned after being condemned by a federal judge for vote-suppression. In this thread Bricker defended the GOP vigorously, implying that no legal means should be out of bounds to suppress Democrat vote; if Dems don’t like it, they should work to suppress GOP votes.

Readers can of course judge for themselves, but nothing in that thread says that no legal means should be out of bounds to suppress Democrat vote.