Okay, fair enough. I apologize for slandering the bloke.
I still maintain severe disapproval of his debate techniques.
I’d just like to point out that just because the SCOTUS decides something on a partisan basis, doesn’t mean it’s right. It’s just final.
And being confident what they (a split court) will choose means you’re delusional, not that you’re a paragon of insight.
Also, Bricker is a shitty person.
Yes, damnit. It does need a sanction, because the smug bastards then forget that their first bullshit ever happened, and move on to the next… and as long as they are on the side that the majority of the Board agrees with, the population of the board lets it happen.
During the entire Zimmerman trial, you with the face was a constant cheerleader for the prosecution. They could do little wrong. Meanwhile, according to her view, the defense was replete with error.
After the verdict, she said something along the lines of, “As much as I know the prosecution put on a terrible case…” and I went ballistic. She KNEW? It would be one thing to be mistaken, honestly bewildered at what constitutes an effective criminal prosecution, but even then, the fact that nearly the unanimous weight of legal commentary might have hinted to her she was wrong. But OK - maybe she just didn’t get it.
But no – she knew. She knew, and didn’t want to say, because somehow accurately reporting what was happening ran contrary to her desire for how things were.
And even in the face of that inadvertent admission, does she 'fess up. No.
And is there any real sanction to that behavior? No. Why shouldn’t she continue to behave that way? It costs her nothing.
When a subject comes along like abortion, the board is virtually unanimous on the subject. Pro-choice, all the way. And any errors, exaggerations, outright lies in the service of being pro-choice are excused.
The pro-life statements are, in contrast, examined with a fine-tooth comb, and if there’s so much as a single instance of subject-verb disagreement, the hounds begin to bay. Got 'im! Let’s pounce!
Fuck that. Yes, if you want to bravely stand up in the middle of your gaggle of like-minded clucking fowl and say that you, too, disfavor ultrasound, just like everyone else, and you are just SURE that it’s unconstitutional… yeah, wager. Because with the wager, you’re just following the flock, and when you’re wrong, the flock protects you.
True, true, and very true. An old Dan O’Neill cartoon had one guy asking what “Absolute Truth” meant. The other guy said, “A five-to-four decision of the Supreme Court.” Obviously, it’s far from “absolute truth” in a philosophical sense…but as it takes a Constitutional Amendment to change (or, of course, a court reversal) it’s pretty damn well graven in stone.
So, You With the Face might be a dishonest debater, or might just be saving face, or might just not take debating on this board as seriously as you do. Either way, why is it worth your time, effort, and head/heartache to try to nail down a square of jello? Put You With the Face on ignore and forget about it. Debate the people who play fair in your view.
What a load of self-serving, self-pitying, sour-grapes bullshit, as if valid arguments against mandatory ultrasounds don’t exist (indeed cannot exist) and are only fabricated in the name of liberal groupthink.
Here’s a sanction suggestion, if you feel one is warranted; sanction us with your absence if your soul suffers such torment in this place. Punish us with your departure. Climb boldly from Hell.
Not talking about valid arguments. Talking about claims that the requirement is unconstitutional.
Look, you clearly have trouble keeping up, but do I suggest you leave just because you struggle with basic concepts? No. Because I have heart.
If I can’t get four bucks out of that, my name’s not Trucklebed!
(1) Do you recognize that a statement like this:
“That is absolutely, unquestionably unconstitutional, and only a douchebag would support it!”
Might mean:
“In my opinion, that should be ruled unconstitutional.”
Rather than:
“The Supreme Court will definitely find it unconstitutional.”
(2) Do you recognize that the following two statements might mean different things:
“It is unconstitutional.”
“The Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional.”
No, you’re lumping the two together and shielding yourself under the vagueness of not actually naming or quoting any specific person as an example of what you imply is some kind of liberal conspiracy to avoid Truth.
Pathetic “I know you are but what am I?” riposte. Well, now I have to go from not respecting you to actively disrespecting you, adding your name to a short list of people (and yes, I can name them) whose antics have shown that thoughtful debate is a complete waste of my time.
Sometimes the use of the word “constitutional” references our reverence for what we, the great unwashed, think the Constitution embodies. We cherish the myth that the Constitution is an egalitarian inspiration, that that which is unjust is by that very fact “unconstitutional”.
Of course, that isn’t strictly true, maybe not even remotely true. But when someone does that, I know precisely what they are talking about, and frequently agree. There is no real failure to communicate, there is no need to fight ignorance that does not actually exist.
We revere the Constitution that reflects the American spirit of progress and equality, but not always the pale imitation pawed over and rigged by lawyers, greed freaks and power gluttons. A Constitution which isn’t always clearly visible,but there’s more of it now than when it was written. Progress is hope, and hope is Constitutional.
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with how to use it, perhaps you can trade it to Scarecrow for a brain.
I think it’s only fair to quote the post that apparently sent Bricker over the edge:
I suppose it was the “quite” that did it. If you’d stopped at merely saying you’d be surprised then that might have been forgivable, but quite surprised? By something Bricker had said would perhaps happen? It was too much to be endured.
That’s very interesting. The state-fleeing episode was strange, but it seemed to play better than that outside of Wisconsin, like they were resorting to anything to defend the rights of unions.
Likewise, from outside WI it doesn’t look like Walker and (maybe less certainly) much of his legislature can keep their jobs. Their actions are practically causing riots in the statehouse, they ran on what appears to be sheer deception, the population doesn’t agree with anything they’re doing, etc. If that doesn’t paint an enormous target on them come re-election time, I don’t know what would.
But if the Dems just trip over themselves, well who knows. I know a lot of people around here who get involved with registering voters and knocking on doors around election time, and haven’t ever seen the kind of mailer you describe. Even so, ITSM that a guy who barely escaped recall in a place where a lot of people said, “I just don’t believe in recalls” isn’t going to be able to hang on at the rate he’s going.
You could tell his Republiconservative armor was already showing cracks when he said “Perhaps another penumbra will be found that strengthens fetal rights to not be slaughtered.” He forgot to say “unborn baby rights”.
This is the part where Silvio always went “Whaoh!”
I was trying to speak your language.
By the same logic, I could point that media – even pro-abortion media outlets – never once referred to the royal baby as a fetus. Even unborn, I guess, royalty is entitled to the presumption of humanity.
Well they never referred to Kate Middleton as ‘baby incubator’, so looks like we break even on that one.
One wonders how the pro-ultrasound people would feel about this scenario: Before buying a gun, you have to view an autopsy video of a person killed by a gunshot. Outrageous? But suppose some people viewing the autopsy then changed their mind. Would that make it okay?
What would make that OK is getting the legislature to agree to it and the governor to sign it.
This despite the fact that acquiring a firearm is a constitutional right whose existence arises from the actual printed text of the constitution, and the right to an abortion appears only in the penumbras and emanations of the constitution.