I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Trinopus

I haven’t been paying enough attention: has he used this before?

I feel vaguely…honored.

It took a few minutes to gather the evidence, but here goes:

In a thread about a no-knock police raid that ended in the resident being fatally shot, Bricker quoted this (I thought rather) harmless observation of mine:

@Bryan_Ekers

Sure, being a criminal increases the odds that one day police will come smashing into your house to serve a no-knock [warrant], but:

-This is not guaranteed, since the majority of criminals don’t have this happen to them; and
-This occasionally does happen to people with no criminal records at all.

…and replied, in part…

@Bricker

Let me offer a speculation that I never would in GD, because it’s just a theory; no proof.

In your little liberal heart of hearts, you don’t really regard Blair’s drug use or selling as a real crime, So you frantically look for ways to forget it, or minimize it, in this discussion. But you readily accept drunk driving as a crime, and so you don’t object when then drunk driver’s death is leavened with discussions about how his drunkeness might be relevant to his death… even if the particular acciddent in which he died was not his fault.

How close am I?

Apparently because I have misgivings about police serving no-knock warrants, given stories like Blair’s that end in a resident getting fatally shot as well as stories about police going to wrong addresses (and residents getting fatally shot), he feels okay speculating that in my “liberal heart of hearts” (definitely not the first time he’d used that phrase on this board), I am sufficiently frantic to legalize drugs (the warrant being served was on drug-related charges) that I’m prepared to overlook that Blair apparently brought about his own death (which you can see here and judge for yourself).

Over the next several posts, I destroyed Bricker. This was his apology.

This was not the only time Bricker accused me or others of having some secret radical agenda (I recall he once suggested I secretly wanted to do away with legislatures and replace them with councils of learned judges, but I can’t recall enough keywords for a search) and I can see why it’s a tempting albeit imbecilic and lazy accusation to make - it can be directed at anyone at any time. If expressing misgivings about legislation means you actually want to do away with democracy in favor of a dictatorship, why, such an accusation could be levied against Bricker himself based on this thread alone, if someone else wants to sink to that level. It means nothing except to betray the lack of a better comeback, masquerading as insight. To wit:

Person A: Everyone’s favorite ice cream flavor is chocolate.
Person B: Mine is vanilla.
Person A: You’re living in denial. Subconsciously, your favorite flavor is chocolate but you won’t admit it.

So, did Person A express an insight into Person B’s mentality, or is he just bullshitting because he doesn’t want to admit he was wrong and/or is trying to put Person B on the defensive?