Still working at it … hoping to strike that perfect pose, balancing faux superior disdain with genuine irritation. Maybe one day …
Me, I’m over here with Joni Ernst: “make em squeal!”
Certainly not debate.
Kinda the whole point.
Well, if it was a joke, and it wasn’t funny the first time, did you lie to yourself when you thought it would be funny the sixth time?
Though I suppose we could just cut to the chase. Do you honestly believe, and if so on what evidence, that Lobohan supported the legislation?
For that matter, do you honestly believe I do as well, since you once suggested I did.
Not a joke either, at least in the ha-ha sense of the word.
It was a use of the same tactic that was being used without negative comment by a bunch of people on the side of the discussion ideologically opposed to mine.
It’s funny that you believe you can ask me to honestly answer a question and expect I will, when that courtesy isn’t available to me.
But sure.
I don’t particularly believe that you or Lobohan was distressed over the Massachusetts thing, but neither do I literally believe that either of you loved it.
The problem with descending to the level of your opponent, is that onlookers then can’t tell which person is the idiot.
I have no opinion on whether the same tactic was used on you earlier in the thread. Was it? Can you cite examples, the way Lobohan did? I’m perfectly willing to believe that it was.
I don’t take “he hit me first!” as a good excuse from students, and I don’t think it’s a good excuse for using lousy discussion tactics. If you don’t think he loved it, then you have no standing for implying he’s a hypocrite and should apologize and retract the implication.
Okay, after your typical passive-aggressive bullshit, you answered the question. I gather this means there won’t be further references to the Mass. legislature along these lines, as far as Lobohan and me are concerned.
My default position is that it’s you.
Correct, there won’t be. The Massachusetts legislature’s action will continue to be fodder for rebuttals of any claims that only Republicans would be so base as to use political power for partisan ends.
But I just told iiiandyiii that I’d abandon the technique of throwing crap in order to highlight the crap being thrown.
Seems to me a better response to such a claim would be to tell the claimant to be less naive.
I would hope, at least, that when you invoke the Massachusetts example, it’s of greater relevance to the subject under discussion, not just a generic “both sides do it” rebuttal.
Besides, I’m not actually sure how “base” the action was. I’d have to do some research on how vacancy Senate appointments are and historically have been handled across the various states. Surely more egregious examples of Democrat shenanigans exist.
You are a fucking idiot.
It’s very difficult to find examples which outright contradict one another. Ardent partisans concoct defenses of almost any action, and a given shenanigan will simply be defended rather than acknowledged to be a shenanigan. Indeed, the Voter ID issue poses the same problem for you. I say there are valid reasons for requiring Voter ID; you contend that those reasons are a fig-leaf justification for the real goal of suppressing valid Democratic votes.
The beauty – for my purposes here – of the Massachusetts action is that the actions taken were diametrically opposed to one another, making it very difficult to defend each of them.
As best I can figure, the optimal answer to each statement is “some of them are” or “some of them do”, which is pretty much useless anyway.
And if it was Democrats using fig-leaf justifications to suppress valid Republican votes, my reaction would be the same, so the notion of partisanship is irrelevant.
Yeah, and if it had been a Republican legislature changing the rules on a Democrat governor, my reactions would also be the same, so at the very least I can provide one example of someone who disagrees with you and is not partisan about it, and is thus unaffected by whatever gotcha point you were trying to make.
For what that’s worth, of course. I remain at most an interested outsider when it comes to American politics, which anyone could use as a rationalization to over- or under-value my opinion, as they see fit, presumably to the extent that I happen to agree with them on something.
Well I think turnabout can be fair play, but
a) Your preposterousness and mockery should be a specific reply to another’s ridiculous argument, and
b) you should be willing to clarify with seriousness and backpeddle as appropriate.
Sometimes you (I) don’t want to step on your (my) own joke though. So you increase the level of absurdity. But it’s good form to recognize the limits of pure text conversation and lay out your cards preferably immediately (which is what I usually do when asked), but definitely after a couple of rounds. We’re here to fight ignorance after all and stale jokes aren’t funny anyway.
Of course I’m merely defending some of my own shtick here. I commonly write up posts that I don’t submit because of insufficient or uncertain humor or quality. We work with what we have. I try to bear in mind that my skills as a humorist are pretty narrow; I lack a reliable ear in that regard.
Oh, you come in at a perfectly respectable 347 millihicks. Bricker runs around 24.
Ideologically opposed?? 
Ideologically opposed???
If you think the opposition to you depends on ideology, no wonder you’re so confused.
I oppose you because of your pretentious lies, and your refusal to debate honestly – finding any excuse to sidestep the real issues.
If you’d admit the truth: that you’re happy to see any legalistic device that makes it more likely for politicians of your “ideology” to be elected, I’d not complain about your position on voter suppression. Instead you’re all lies, pretence, and blather.
Say what you will about Bricker, but on that matter you are simply wrong. I’ll let him point you to instances where he as done the opposite, however even on the issue of voter ID (which you are conflating with all other “legalistic” methods here) he has consistently spoken against the introduction of “last minute” measures that do not give people enough time to adjust to the new regulations.
He pretends to be reasonable and his posts are so varied and voluminous that – like a Rohrschach inkblot test – one can see what one chooses. But mostly he cackles “Neener neener neener” when his side wins even the most egregious voter suppression dispute.
Can you point to even a single pro-GOP voter suppression program which passed judicial scrutiny that Bricker condemned as partisan?
It is simply hilarious that the liberals on this board, led by the some of the biggest asses, are giving Bricker a hard time for giving said liberals some shit. How dare suspend the Marquis of Queensberry rules and throw a little mud your way. Given the low level of shit some of said liberal wallow in routinely, its a wonder they can even tell that a spatter comes their way.
Funny, funny, funny!