I Pit GOP "voting reform"

The BBQ Pit
461

You are seriously trying to claim that you didn’t purposely make it so that anyone who wanted to see that quote in context would have to see that one word in smaller font was a link, then click twice to get to dig around in the thread to see what led up to that one sentence quote you decided to use?

What would I have you do? Try being honest. I don’t know Bricker, I have little idea what his opinions on since I have, as I said earlier, essentially given up on this thread, but in this exchange it is obvious that you are, at the very least, no better than he.

462

The whole fucking quote is a link! It’s surrounded by a solid black line you doddering bat.

Stupid, slow down. Ease off the confused bitch throttle and idle for a second. The quote is accurate. The link that goes to the actual post has the context. It lists the question that Bricker is answering. Just because Bricker is on your side, the side of angry, conservative, pissantry, that doesn’t mean he’s defacto correct.

Think about this, willya?

I took his quote and linked to the question he was answering. On that link, you can go to the actual thread. None of this changes the fact, that there is no special context. Bricker’s a lying sociopath piece of shit. And you’re just too technically confused to know what the fuck is going on. Have yourself a napkin sandwich and think on that.

Well, I’m not evil, at least I try not to be. So I’m one step ahead of old Bricktop on that basis.

463

God you are a jackass. I’d say I’m sorry that you have such a small dick, but you’d probably think I’m sympathizing with you.

464

Yes. You gave context in much the same way Sean Hannity gives context by showing the dates for the speeches when he takes a quote for his show. That way you can look the speech up yourself later.

465

Or you could have changed the “showpost” in the link to “showthread” and made it easier on everyone.

466

Okay retards. Lookie here: I just used the quick quote button. Because some of you are completely inept with common internet usage, the quick quote button is immediately to the right of the quote button. It looks like a set of close quotation marks with a plus sign. It allows you to quote a selection outside of the thread you’re currently in. You can use your mouse to select it. Your mouse is the thing that controls the pointer… uh the little arrow on the screen. Okay so far?

Now you people do understand that when you quote someone, you don’t also list everyone they’ve quoted, right? It just shows the actual text they wrote and not anything they’ve quoted. In this example, this shows just Bricker’s quote and nothing by Voyager, who’s question he was answering.

Now in this case, you can click on the little arrow next to Bricker’s name to go to the thread directly. I know, I just blew your minds, because you people seem to have the fucking technical acumen of my grandmother.

What I did, was link to his post directly. Because what you stupid fucking apologists for Bricker aren’t realizing is there is no issue of context. He answered a question directly. It’s not a chunk of a larger quote or him being all Socratic and wise. He’s a fucking asshole.

So the difference is I linked to his post, rather than his post inline in the thread. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but people do that every single fucking day on the board. I didn’t realize that it was akin to Hannity outright lying.

You do realize that linking to posts isn’t something I invented, right?

So anyway, this is exactly what Bricker wanted. He bitched about “context” in order to plant the seed in gullible minds. And you mushy-brained lot are burying the lead here:

Bricker, someone who calls himself a Christian, thinks it is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford medical treatment. Just like my link shows. This means a poor diabetic who can’t afford insulin should just go into a coma on the bus as far as he’s concerned. You think that’s cool?

As an aside, unlike Bricker, I’m not habitually dishonest. Look at my posting history, I’m confrontational and snippy, but I don’t craft posts to confuse people. To the extent that some of you were confused, I honestly apologize, but I assumed that:

  1. By now everyone knew how to make an entire post into a link. There are threads dedicated to the concept. I think it’s more aesthetically pleasing than just having someone click on the little blue arrow next to the name. Being able to click on anywhere in the text is more useful.

  2. Seeing his post alone, which includes the quote by Voyager he was responding to, was the reasonable citation necessary, since anyone at all could just go to the thread directly by clicking on the link to the upper right of the post.

467

It’s so tempting to respond with TLDR.

So you want everyone to take bricker at a sentence and you at your posting history. That’s funny bro.

468

But you can’t click anywhere in the text. Go back and try it; I’ll wait.

…

See? The only part that’s clickable is the little “Quote:” above the box. I don’t know how you think that’s more useful. Nor do I agree that having one huge run-on link that includes all of the quote (had you actually coded it that way) is more aesthetically pleasing.

There’s definitely somebody confused around here, and evidence suggests that it is not the rest of us.

469

Leaving aside the crucial issue of quote dickishness…

I’m inclined to cut friend Bricker some slack on that quote. One of the weaknesses of the conservative mind-set is a compelling desire to think of themselves as hard-headed realists, as compared to us pie-in-the-sky lefties. This often leads them to make statements that are one full step more cold blooded than they really are.

Plus, I’m kinda of a fan of logical and semantic gymnastics, and in that regard, Bricker has no real peer here, being a lawyer trained by Jesuits. He is who Starkers wishes he was. As well, he is an excellent candidate for our outreach program. He’s smart, we’re right, so sooner or later, he’s ours.

470

I think I see the problem. The quote thing works in Chrome, Firefox and Safari. It works weird in IE. Which by the way is evidence that no one should use IE.

In any case, the traditional quote this post button (the one with the close quotation marks and the plus, immediately to the right of the quote button) produces this result:

The post above that the stupid people in this conversation are upset about looks like this:
[

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246)

In IE, at least in the version I have on my laptop, the bottom post is completely underlined and reacts to a mouseover, but you can’t click unless you navigate near the top. This is typical of IE’s random internet fuckups and disregard of standards.

In other browsers, that work better in every single way, the entire box of text acts as a clickable link.

In any case, look at both quotes above. Neither shows the post that Bricker quoted. Because that isn’t how quotes work. They only display one level down.

Are we all together? Good.
Now if you click on the blue triangle next to Bricker’s name in the top quote you’ll get to the thread and his post inline. (Which by the way is why I like the URL trick. Most posters in my experience don’t know about the blue triangle.)

If you click anywhere on the bottom quote (unless you’re using IE, in which case, you mouse over the post and find that the top is a link) you go to Bricker’s post directly. Not inline, but by itself.

Are we still together? Good.
In either version Bricker’s post consists of this quote:

And his answer:

Now, I’m not sure why the slow kids have glommed onto the idea of context, here. I know it’s an easy answer if you don’t want to think and are faced with something that’s hard to argue against. “Oh the context, they left out the context.”

However, in this case, the context is that Bricker answered a question. He did it in an evil fashion. If he didn’t mean it, I can’t tell you. But I think taking something someone isn’t saying as a joke at face value is a reasonable thing to do.

But in any case, if you wanted to see the whole thread for more detail, that’s easily gotten to in my link. Right there in the upper right hand corner.
So the takeaway is:

  1. Stop using IE, adults under 60 aren’t supposed to use it. IE is janky as shit. Switch to Safari, Chrome or Firefox.

  2. Bricker answered a simple question by stating that he finds a situation where sick people die for lack of medical care totally acceptable.

  3. People who take Bricker as on their side, or at least take Lobohan as against their side, will go nuts over a commonly used quoting convention because it’s easier than thinking. The context you need is in the quote. People quote individual posts all the fucking time. And only stupid people are lost when it comes to finding the root thread.

  4. Stupid people who can’t face reality will complain and say TL;DR.

<3

471

I’m gonna have to ask that you stop being so fucking reasonable. Domo.

472

You know you make a good point. Oh wait, there’s other ways to vote.

Ability to make it a polling station should have no bearing on whether a willing party votes, sadly as that map shows, it can.

473

Of course there are people who do so prefer, and remain legally qualified to vote.

474

[

](Forums - TopGold.Forum)

Exactly. As a web developed I endorse this. My time is spent 60% writing a page that works good on most browsers, and 40% including IE specific code dealing with the fact Microsoft IE employees would rather rape goats than write good browser code.

475

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/09/whistleblower-fired-after-revealing-wisconsin-voter-suppression/
They have fired Wisconsin employee who thought that DMV customers should be informed that a free ID is available. Why would they do that? Could it be because they don’t want these people voting?
You know damn well why he got canned. More undesirables, as determined by the Republicans in charge, might vote. That is clearly voter suppression.

476

And yet we still do. Sad really

Well gee. When ya say things like that, ya sound like you don’t wanna be pals.

Oh we manage to keep up just fine. Doesn’t take much speed to follow you. Mostly insults after all and not exactly clever ones.

In an evil fashion? Twirling a handlebar mustache while he ties a maiden to the train tracks? I’m impressed he can type while doing all that.

And it’s still irrelevant to his views in this thread which is what makes you look less like a person who wants to contribute to the thread and more like someone who simply has an axe to grind with Bricker.

Don’t drag quotes from an irrelavant thread to smear someone.

In another thread that isn’t connected to this one in any way.

Bricker has managed to stay quite rational and on topic in this thread. You dragged something irrelevant to this thread into this thread to smear Bricker. I’m not so much taking his side as much as I think he’s behaving far better than you.

Wow. Stupid. That stings. Of course I’m far to slow to know that I’m being insulted, so that kind of dulls the pain a bit. Still I imagine it will hurt quite ferociously in a few hours when my poor little brain manages to catch up.

Oh you insult me then leave me with this. How can I stay upset with you?

477

It’s not easy going through life this motherfucking charming.

:smiley:

478

Now that they’ve been caught, they’ve put up signs detailing the free ID program.

I suspect the signs were planned ahead of time. I’d also bet that they weren’t planning on putting them up quite so soon.

There’s also this bit at the end.

479

I fear I must counterquibble. **Bricker **does speak in lawyerese when it suits his purposes, but those purposes tend to be desperate attempts to rationalize the short-term partisan interests of the Republican Party as being necessary results of constitutional law and history. Except, that is, for the times when he’s trying to defend the moral rectitude of the Roman Catholic Church in similar rationalistic terms. He isn’t thinking in lawyerese ab initio, he does so only as part of his self-appointed role as counsel for the side of the two organizations to whom his loyalty is total and unquestioning.

I am quite sure he knows what he’s doing and why. He does almost always try to restate arguments in legalese (or, on occasion and even more pathetically, high school debate club rules), yes, but that’s only because he can almost never make arguments on a moral or principled basis while simultaneously zealously defending his “clients”.

But at least he’s not a whore. Whores get paid.

480

Actually, Starkers is usually so busy thanking his lucky stars that he didn’t turn out to be an elucidator or a Lobohan that he doesn’t have time to wish he were anyone else. :smiley:

And Lobohan: Hey, Smart Guy™, “Δ” is a triangle; “[>]” is a box with an arrow in it. :smiley:

Au contraire. If they can’t show proof of age and citizenship they aren’t legally qualified to vote. As an attorney you should know that. We don’t allow people to vote anonymously in this country. If people choose to live an invisible-to-the-authorities lifestyle, then they just aren’t going to be the easy-vote pickings that the Dems would like them to be. Of course the miscreants already know that, and it’s why they’re resistant to Dem efforts to get them to the polls. And that of course is why the Dems favor doing away with ID and opening the polls to all comers: (“Why, how are we supposed to flood the polls with crooks, ne-er do wells and illegal immigrants - a considerable percentage of our constituency, btw - if you assholes are going to make them prove they’re legally qualified before they can vote?”)

How you people can look yourselves in the mirror is a mystery to me.