Well, until SCOTUS weighs in, of course.
Well, that’s SCOTUS for ya…
I have pitted Bricker many a time myself, and I actually don’t find this whole betting thing bothersome at all. I mean, I might not describe it quite as pompously as he does, but it’s certainly the case that the SDMB is overwhelmingly liberal, and that there are times when that overwhelmingly liberalness leads to people getting carried away and making overbroad claims with overcertainty.
And even if bets never actually get made, I think it’s a useful way to get people to stop and think about precisely what they’re saying. “GWBush/Obama is going to suspend elections and declare himself dictator for life”. “Really? Do you actually really think that is going to happen? Literally? If so, want to make $100?”. I think that the SDMB is poorly served by either (a) having people make extremely far-fetched claims, or (b) people using hyperbolic language that doesn’t sound like it’s hyperbolic so we think they’re making far-fetched claims. And I think the concept of wagering on those claims is a good way to apply the equivalent of a dash of cold water to the face, even if no bet ends up being made.
Oh, I don’t care about his apparent propensity for wagering (about which I’d no idea prior to this thread), it’s that he self-servingly buries the distinction between “valid viewpoint that disagrees with mine” and “liberacy conspiracy groupthink propaganda Communist-inspired America-destroying hyperbolic stopthought baby-killing get-thee-behind-me-Satan freckled froths of terror from numbed sheeplike lips”.
Well, he actually only said “terror”, the rest was admitted embellishment.
Or emanations. Penumbras.
Would it surprise you to learn that virtually identical sentiments were aired here during the recall effort? And that the crowd here fell all over themselves agreeing that Walker would be recalled?
And then when that didn’t happen, the flock turned to assuring each other that Walker was soon to be indicted?
And that efforts to remind people of their inaccurate perceptions after the indictment investigation closed with no indictment of Walker was met with suggestions that I made my point and should not focus on the past?
Because that’s how you all do it.
Sure. That’s how you do it, too.
Well, gosh, Bricker, if you feel you are unfairly treated, you should have said something! Its not good to keep that sort of thing all bottled up, it curdles your chi.
:dubious: Ya know, that kinda dirty talk is why there are so many unwanted pregnancies!
Ah, but the difference is I’m mocking you personally. I feel no compulsion whatsoever to talk vaguely of right-wing social movements unable to handle the truth and oppressing poor little me without actually giving an example of such. That’s crybaby talk.
I gave examples.
What, stuff from the Zimmerman thread? Irrelevant.
“Pro-lifers”, totally not about a sexist, theocratic desire to hurt women just for being women, nooooo sir: Public Shaming - 14 Year Old Women’s Rights Activist Attacked Online, Labeled “Slut,” “Whore”
Not really. I didn’t learn about this issue yesterday yanno. I agreed with the recall effort myself, but it only knocked out a few legislators and that was that. They’re quite uncommon, and I don’t expect people who narrowly survive them to go on to be re-elected. To me it says they’ve pissed off too many people for that.
Meh, I didn’t follow that issue. McDonnell is the guy to watch if you want to see a governor get taken out by means other than a recall.
Focus on the past if that is what you want to do. People were wrong and you weren’t? Enjoy it, because I don’t think that will be the case with this ultrasound business.
I think you like this board because there are a lot of people here who can mount an intelligent defense of their positions, even when those positions don’t pan out. I think if you went to a message board where the majority agreed with you and Walker and McCrory and Perry &etc, you’d soon be frustrated with how those posters are mostly dumber than stumps. I’m not going to tell you to beat it, but I think what you’re seeing here is what the majority of intelligent people think. The process is the process is the process, yes, but if you look at the big picture it should be clear that the process is perverted by big money interests, especially since Citizens United, and that some of the true intent of the *design *of the process is lost because of that.
What, don’t admit when we’re wrong? Pffft! If I knew everything I wouldn’t come here. If you want to pit the 'dope, start a new thread. This one is about (yes, governor) Walker and his asinine, dishonest sonogram bill, what a prick that guy is, and if it hasn’t already been mentioned, his uncanny resemblance to a Down’s Syndrome sufferer.
I wonder if any of the people claiming the girl is a whore are willing to put money on it.
Is this about the political predictive acuity of Dopers, the moral and human effect of these laws, or Bricker’s dignity?
I daresay it’s something of a grab bag.
:mad: See post #947.
Yeah, yeah… there’s room for smart-assery, too. Though there’s a significant aspect to what you were responding to - sure, Bricker can express… I dunno… contempt? dismay? cynicism? I’m sure he’ll be glad to clarify his feelings on the matter… dislike for SCOTUS spelunking up some emanations and penumbras, but judicial review is part of the process and has been since Marbury. I figure it’s okay for me to state this obvious fact, since Bricker has mentioned at least twice that laws get passed by legislators and signed by governers… duh, as if this was insightful or contributing. After the legislature and executive get their chance, the judiciary can weigh in, too, as long as someone challenges the law and it’s inconceivable that something as intrusive as Wisconsin’s latest doggerel would escape.
Anyway, SCOTUS found a way to side with Roe, and to some extent with Planned Parenthood… it’s not at all unreasonable to see a good chance they won’t overall like this ultrasound requirement. I’m sure Scalia will love it, but I’m hoping he won’t be with the majority on this.
How else would he be “taken out?” That sounds ominous.
Yes, there will always be unfortunate extremists. That’s an example of people who call themselves pro-life acting very poorly.
But you don’t see me posting: “Pro-choicers, totally about the health and safety of women, oh, yeah: nothing to see here, move along..”
Because I recognize that this is not representative of the pro-choice position at large.
Yes. Because I believe that any position I hold should be defensible against a motivated attacker. If I find myself holding a position that collapses under an intelligent and motivated critique, I abandon it. As I have done, here, more than once.
No, here I disagree. I wouldn’t spend time there simple because I don’t see the value i having an echo chamber confirm my own beliefs; I could invest in a collection of bobble-head dolls for that purpose. I’m here not because others who agree with me are somehow bereft of reasoning, but because here I can count on a vigorous challenge.
But must I take the chaff with the wheat? Can’t I point out the dishonest, foolish, or go-along-with-the-herd people at the same time I’m enjoying the fruits of their smarter cousins?