I think he was talking about Hitler…
Nah, I think it was because he noticed one entry on the new rules: 
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=887711&highlight=betting+rule
If I have more time I can explain how jerkish that was when he tried to apply that ruse to me in the past.
Gee. And all this time, I thought it was more a “we really don’t give a fuck either way”.
I assumed Sanders, but hey…
It’s pronounced, “Heil!”
How do you write such things with Schiff’s dick in your mouth?
Funny how male candidates never get critiqued like this, when Clinton faced the complacent sexism of supposed liberals, the hatred of Republicans, the fact that our society refuses to admit that men falsely accuse women constantly and other men embrace the lies with passion; the fact that Repub gerrymandering and voter suppression cost her hundreds of thousands of votes, that Comey is a sexist asshole, and that not one single fucking male candidate EVER got subjected to all male panels debating if they were shrill, and that a year later, it turned out that some of the media men who hated Hillary were sexual predators and outright rapists.
Oh, yeah, and I forgot the three decades of Republican attacks.
You are right margin. She still should have worked the purple states harder. Her eyes were hardly closed when she went into this. Three decades of Pubby attacks, remember. Plus many of us liberals are jerks. She hardly could have missed on that. I filled in the oval. Too many in Critical states stayed home.
I hope Warren does better. She’s hit some rough spots, but seems to be weathering them. With luck, she’ll make it beyond the “many men are jerks” threshold that Clinton stumbled on.
Clinton did face unfair criticism and gender bias. I don’t dispute that at all. That does not change the fact that she ran a less than successful campaign. Something she herself expressed responsibility for. When she isn’t busy making comments that undermine that sincerity.
So, while you’re not wrong, you’re not actually right in this context.
Bricker’s use of rhetorical tricks and stubbornness is no worse than what we see from some of his detractors. I would love to see Bricker return as a regular poster. Unlike the other conservative lawyer (is it certain UltraVires is a lawyer?), Bricker was unquestionably intelligent, and posted his own thoughts instead of simply regurgitatating the latest Republican speaking points. I could disagree with Bricker and at least know I was disagreeing with a person as opposed to a mouth for the Republican party.
Yes, Bricker isn’t perfect, and like all of us, stumbled from time to time, but by and large, I think he was an asset to the board.
He’s an apologist for torturers.
Bricker can be infuriating, but he’s articulate and his arguments are often compelling. We don’t always have to agree with someone in order to have a thought provoking conversation.
I agree. Bricker leaving is a loss for the board, as infuriating as I sometimes found him. His flaws as a poster were the kind of flaws that appear to me to be generally glossed over and mostly ignored unless they come from someone who goes against the grain on the board (which is more of an indictment of human nature than the board itself – we lean liberal, and thus as humans, we’re more likely to object to and challenge views that are very different from ours than those more similar).
Yeah, you ignored all the other factors. Hindsight is 20/20, and somehow, nobody is critiquing Bernie, who lost to her by how many millions of votes, again?
Until he gets the shit she did and does----i.e.,—“Shut up and knit,”----you’re guaranteeing another Trump win by not noticing or doing anything about that a guy who looks and acts like Bernie got a pass from everybody. Acting like sexism is not as big a deal as blaming Clinton is the problem.
When 1/3 of Pubbies freely admit Donald’s crimes, but support him anyway, see today’s papers, you are starting to get down to a vanishingly small number of honest defenders. It’s not just here, other than the pundits and partisan operatives who are paid to lie, there are probably only a few thousand honest, informed and reasonably intelligent defenders of Mr. T. in the entire country.
You’d think they could figure how to make a buck out of their scarcity, but no, that’s not happening.
I’d like to think the Dems would make out better given a similar situation, but no. It seems the honest ones are just plain old screwed, without recourse.
Naturally, I pity the fools.
I’ve disagreed multiple times on multiple topics (and agreed too) with Bricker, and he ran the gamut from intelligent debater to partisan hack. Let’s not pretend he was always above board, though. He was more than willing to ignore facts or evidence that did not support his view, to devolve a conversation into name-calling, to rely heavily on the old tu quoque for almost everything, and to simply repeat himself. More than that, he had a penchant for being a condescending prick about the law to non-lawyers, constantly punching down rather than debating an equal. Rather than explain the law, or try to educate someone, he was much more prone to play the Paper Chase professor and be a smug jerk.
I’m also quite curious why he left. I’m guessing he realized what the Trump election/administration says about the realities of the Republican party rather than what he was trying to sell it as for years, and didn’t want the hassle. I hope him and his family are well.
Sounds like he made you feel stupid.
I liked Bricker, he could have a good discussion without emotion getting involved. Even though I disagreed with some of his views, he always argued in a lawyerly fashion, which I liked.
Swing and a miss.
When I spoke of his penchant for arrogance and punching down, it wasn’t about me. I am a lawyer; one who has dealt with many lawyers in my life, and I recognized (and understood) what he was saying and doing.