Ah, Bricker, why are you only funny when you’re not intending to be? You declared your claim unprovable as I recall. It struck me as almost religious on your part.
To the extent it matters, I’ll wait for any interested parties to weigh in, though I don’t know how many are willing to bother.
Won’t call it unethical.
Will call it unseemly.
Why is this issue unseemly to bet about?
It is noticeable that his “gotcha” of me rewriting the past is just grasping at straws, I do not think it is a big deal as I was not taking his bet, and this threat just becomes evidence #200 of a thread turned into the Bricker show.
…how on earth did we manage to turn a rant thread about a specific topic into a platform for you to complain that people won’t bet with you? Is your ego that big or are you simply drunk? You sometimes play the fool in threads Bricker but this is you at your most ego centric. Whatever point you thought you were making, consider it made. No one is going to take you up on your offer of a bet. Do your victory dance, then go find another thread to piss all over. Or you can stay in this one and keep on acting like a whiney 10 year old. Which really is unbecoming behaviour coming from someone claiming to be an adult.
Actually, it might not be, per se. But you’re a Paladin, driven by the guiding principle that Right makes (metaphorical) Might. Betting on the outcome of this case, compartmentalizing away the human costs that will be incurred should the people I unashamedly call The Bad Guys prevail, strikes me as analogous to bringing the makings of a batch of s’mores to the fire at the orphanage.
Unseemly.
Cheap talk, I do not think you will feel any inclination then to consider how unseemly and inhuman you appear too.
It may comfort you to think what I said was not accurate about me, but it is.
Dang. Y’all are staying up pretty late for a school night (that’s my excuse for not quoting Bricker’s post #83, to which the above is a response).
Yes, and I still don’t care. I still don’t give a shit. It’s still a shitty lawsuit designed to kneecap a good law in a way that would hurt a lot of people. So even if it is legal, fuck this lawsuit, and you’re a shitty person for defending it.
I think you mean “legal reasoning” in that last sentence, given that the OP did in fact put down some reasoning on the subject.
That said; none of those threads were about lawsuits. However,this thread was about convictions, and this thread was about an arrest, both of which I would say are about “legal stuff” on which an opinion could have been given to the same extent as a lawsuit. Here is an additional thread about a lawsuit which you did not lay out your legal reasoning in the OP.
Edit: In case I’m being included in your “Ha ha! Betting!” gotcha, I believe gambling is immoral. I hope you’ll consider that fair reason to disinclude me.
No, it wasn’t “about convictions.” It was about the tactic of trying to discourage a group of student volunteers who were helping to overturn convictions by investigating each volunteer’s past for misdeeds. There was no legal issue in play. It was beyond cavil that the work the students were doing was legal. No part of that OP is a commentary on a disputed legal issue.
This thread condemns the arrest of a boy for opening a Christmas present early.
And it’s a good example. I posted a thread implicitly criticizing the police and the mother without much in the way of analysis. That was quickly revealed to have been an error by the rest of the SDMB, leading me to concede:
In other words, I was shown to have posted without the kind of analysis that I should have done.
Yes, I did. I described the specific suit in play and the facts which supported it:
Officer stops car and destroys photos taken by driver, because those photos show officer’ scar stuck in mud. Driver claims this violates his civil rights and is suing. And I said I agreed the suit had merit, and that the officer had no good faith reason to do what he did:
All from the OP. That OP is an excellent example of offering relevant legal facts about a legal issue. It’s a perfect contrast with what this OP did NOT do: make any mention of the specific issues or reasons the lawsuit was infirm (or justified).
This is the attitude that amazes me.
You seriously think that’s how the country ought to run? Who cares what the law actually says? It’s a good law, and stopping it will hurt people, so it’s shitty to challenge it, no matter whether the challenge is actually justified by the words or not?
The legislators that didn’t give this enough time to be worked on, that pushed it because we had to pass it to know what’s in it, they are good people doing the right thing, and anyone who comes along to point out that now it’s passed and we know what’s in it, and what’s in it doesn’t work is shitty. We should all pretend that the law says the correct stuff, because helping people.
Liberals.
That’s why I can’t be a liberal. I can’t empty my head like that. Between this, GIGO’s impassioned no one can say anything bad about the ACA without losing his humanity and Revenant Threshhold’s search through the past fifteen years of my postings to desperately find a thread where I didn’t comment on a legal issue so that somehow we can all pretend the ACA says something it doesn’t.
Liberals.
A fair point.
Another reasonable point.
This one I don’t agree with you on. You do indeed point out what the lawsuit is for, but you point out the facts of the situation, not how those facts would be looked upon by the law. It’s “This is what happened, so the cop was wrong.” not “This is what happened, here’s how those facts should be interpreted legally/in court, so the cop was wrong.”
I haven’t issued an opinion on ACA. In this thread, and potentially at all on these boards, if I’m remembering correctly. It’s one of those issues that I feel is complicated enough that I can’t imagine offering thoughts on unless it was some very specific situation. My posts to you (and John Mace) are not about ACA, nor some kind of smokescreen to hide it.
And, mate, your started Pit threads consist of one search page. I’m hardly sitting here beavering away at fifteen years worth of posts from you. “Desperately” seems rather forced.
Why couldn’t this be true? It was shitty of southerners to challenge Civil Rights protections for black people, whether or not they had any legal justification. It might also be shitty in this case, whether or not there is legal justification. If the motivation is to hurt the President, hurt the Democratic party, and/or hurt poor people, then it’s a very shitty thing to do.
I think there are non-shitty ways of improving the law. This is probably not one of them.
At this point, he’s claiming to be the adult - everyone else in the thread is an empty-headed sufferer of liberal-itis.
Exactly. And that’s not the same as saying “the law doesn’t allow subsidies unless the exchange was established by a state”. You’re jumping the gun on how the interpretation is going to turn out after the ruling. The law is affirmative, not negative. That is, it allows subsidies when exchanges are set up by the states, but it doesn’t, explicitly, disallow subsidies when they are not. I can see where some justices would be perfectly willing to consider the federal subsidies to be equivalent to the state subsidies since they are set up for the states.
Er…
This is what happened:
This is how those facts give rise to a cause of action:
This is my indication that in my view those facts support that cause of action:
Here’s what I don’t get about this betting thing.
You agree that a lot of legal experts don’t agree with you. But you think those experts are all wrong. OK. But how do you know the judges will agree with you? Maybe they’ll be just as “wrong” as the other legal experts, who think the lawsuit won’t succeed.
He refused to take your offer to bet on a claim that he wasn’t actually making (& which he in fact specifically disputed).
I agree that this is evidence of something. Just not what you’re citing it for.
The IRS cannot give subsidies unless some law authorizes them.
The law does not need to explicitly disallow subsidies. No IRS subsidy of any type is permitted unless some law, somewhere, authorizes it.