That’s what this discussion is about? You sure that you didn’t move the goalposts out past Lone Pine Ridge, over in Tuscadero County, and then tried to tell us they were there all along?
No, I’m pretty sure that’s where we are now.
We got there by wondering if DeLay is “scum.” Evidence for his being scum was his killing this bill – only someone that was scum would kill such a bill.
So now we’re discussing whether that’s true… a legislator’s ideas about a law he will, or will not, support.
What did you think was under discussion?
Something about how it was possible that Mr DeLay was motivated by civic duty and political idealism. I’ve added it to my scrapbook, Bricker’s Extraordinary Propositions. It is a chestnut, it deserves preservation.
What?
Can’t you just make simple, declarative sentences? I try to isolate the actual point you are arguing, but it slips away like an angry eel.
In this latest exchange, I said: Here the discussion doesn’t involve the Equal Protection Clause. It involves the decision by one lawmaker not to support a law which other lawmakers did support. (In rebuttal to Whack-a-Mole’s “question.”)
You replied saying that I had moved the goalposts.
I said I hadn’t, and recapped how we came to be discussing the decision by one lawmaker not to support a law which other lawmakers did support.
And your response is the above. What does it mean? I never said he was motivated by civic duty and idealism. I said he may have thought the immigration law Murkowski proposed wasn’t the way to combat rape and forced abortion. I certainly don’t think it is. No one who’s answered this question has suggested it was the best way to do this, although some have allowed it might have had some effect in this area.
Then you come along and spout some shit about civic duty and idealism. Who said that, and when?
I think you’re right up there with Tom Delay. You posts on this board amply display who and what you are, and whet your values are.
You’re totally cool with workers being exploited (assuming they’re far away an brown-skinned). You like to hide your repellant views behind lawyerly obfuscations.
I wish you everything you deserve.
As a brown-skinned worker myself, I’m utterly offended by this post.
And since this is (supposedly) Great Debates, I’ll point out that this is a classic ad hominem attack. It doesn’t address the point at all; it attacks the proponent. Me. It invites the reader to conclude that I am bad, and that because I am bad, my point must be wrong.
Well I know that Bricker thinks Delay is factually guilty because Bricker is actively defending Delay, and Bricker only defends people who are factually guilty as he has bragged in another thread. QED
Another gem of an argument.
Hey, it’s based on sound premises. Mind you, I think Tom Delay is factually innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty.
No, it’s not. I said that as a public defender, I believed I never had an innocent client. There is absolutely nothing to allow you to infer that because it was true of my long-ago career as a PD, it’s also true of anyone I choose to defend in argument here.
Is there?
So what are the sound premises you mention?
Well, now you are splitting hairs. This is a public forum, he is accused of of a crime, you are defending him. You have never publicly defended someone who is factually innocent. Therefore, he is guilty.
You might want to assert your genuine belief that he is factually innocent, but that would be misconduct, now wouldn’t it?
The fact is that until such a time as there is a conviction, he is presumed innocent of criminal wrongdoing. None of us here who do not have access to all the files, statements, etc. is particularly qualified to assert otherwise.
Fallacy of equivocation. “Publicly defended someone,” does not mean the same thing as acting as a public defender. A public defender is a lawyer, paid by public funds to provide assistance of counsel to the indigent. It’s not anyone who, in public view, defends someone.
This is one of the stupidest “gotcha” posts I’ve ever seen crafted on this board. Maybe the worst.
The Facts and The Second Stone, even for this sort of thread, you guys are going over the line. Back off and tone it down. If you need to make nasty comments about another poster, take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, let’s make the point about Tom Delay this way:
Tom Delay is not factually innocent of the charge of influence peddling. By his own statements the K Street Project and the Republican House of Representatives was a pay for play proposition deliberately intended to skirt all the laws and be only technically legal. By the standard of “factually innocent”, a drunk driver who is acquitted because the evidence was lost is treated the same as if the evidence was non-existent. Or a confessed murderer who has the confession thrown out and as a result is acquitted is the same as Tom Delay being in a state of “pre-confessed” because of that little technicality of the 5th amendment. All of everything really depends on how you define it, and then redefine it later when they start to close in. It’s like Glenn Beck asserting that the post war civil rights movement was accomplished by Republicans. When someone like Glenn Beck lies in bad faith for the purpose of advancing his cause it destroys everyone’s faith in the veracity of every reporter.
If one wants to discard our system of rights and duties (which I don’t) why can’t we equally apply this system to Tom Delay, or more importantly to the accused.
I don’t recall any statements from Tom DeLay admitting that K Street Project and the Republican House of Representatives was a pay for play proposition deliberately intended to skirt all the laws and be only technically legal.
Cite?
For me, any mention of the K Street Project fills me with dread and loathing, and the kind of nausea that cannot be relieved by simply puking yer guts out. Perhaps if I weren’t so partisan and blind, I could see the many, many virtues of this noble experment in democratic governance.
Who can we turn to and have these wondrous gifts pointed out to us? Who, indeed?
Not a cite, nor an argument or rebuttal. Please state your argument in simple, plain terms so that I might understand it.
To review, the claim is: “By [DeLay’s] own statements the K Street Project and the Republican House of Representatives was a pay for play proposition deliberately intended to skirt all the laws and be only technically legal.”
And I was asking for a cite.
They have to do with the discussion at hand. It shows that despite your rhetoric about being fair minded while bemoaning liberal partisanship you are as partisan as they come in these discussions. You are defending the indefensible and doing it by splitting hairs and playing games (such as ignoring context when it is critical to the discussion).
I asked you in the thread on EP analysis if you were ok with it as it stands. I have asked here repeatedly if you were ok with the status quo.
You have diligently ignored answering those questions.
So, when you strongly back a law that has no rational basis (or at the least is clearly very far from being the “best” a law could do) your sudden defense of a guy not voting on a law because it is not the “best” rings rather hollow. You are obviously ok with a law not being remotely the “best” per the previous thread.
Further, you have not shown that DeLay was trying for a better anything as regards Saipan. Where is his principled stand to achieve a stronger bill for the people of Saipan?
I found this (bolding mine):