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

Well, actually, Bricker is *not *a complete fucking retard, of course. He’s actually quite intelligent, obviously, but he lacks a moral core to go with it, as this topic yet again demonstrates. His utter lack of a sense of responsibility greater than himself or the two institutions to which his fealty is absolute above all, the Republican Party and the Roman Catholic Church, lead him to utterly misuse his intelligence in highly destructive ways, ways which his misplaced absolute fealty prevent him from seeing, or even seeing as possible.

Certain other posters, yes, they’re both.

Okay, went back and reread all 16 pages of that damn thread. Was a real pain in the ass because I went backwards and for the last 10 pages you were telling John Stamos to go back an read your answer, which was actually on page 1 or 2.

Since I want everyone to be able to play along, I have to craft a post that gives the links and summarizes the argument which will take a bit of time. I’ll see if I can get to this later or tomorrow as I have to go back to work since I spent the last hour reading a 16 page thread.

However, in brief, I think you arbitrarily dismissed the findings of the study. They even directly contradict your expressed reason for accepting them.

Sure. What are these steps, and where have they been taken? Do you mean the steps taken in Florida and Texas to make it more difficult and potentially criminal to mount a voter registration drive? Steps like that?

He’s got intelligence, it’s true. But he has trouble using it, I think, when it comes to things that challenge what he’s decided to believe.

He’s certainly willing to lie, and deceive and more than willing to take a win that results not from honest arguing, but from his bullshit.

For NOT accepting them. Missed the window.

Hey, now, lying isn’t is first choice! Usually, his first choice is to re-frame the argument to a more sympathetic one. Failing that, use his zircon-encrusted semantic parsing tweezers. Then, if necessary, suggestion, innuendo, and sly slander. Somewhere along that line, he’ll bitch about not getting a fair hearing because of liberal bias and hypocrisy. If all of that fails, then he’ll lie! But it is not his first choice.

And the worst of it? He’s still the most honest Republican on the Boards! Of course, that bar is so low, an earthworm could jump over it.

I though I was joking, and then I realized, I’m not. Damn, that is sooo depressing! I hate it when that happens.

John Mace is right up there with him, though he claims he’s not Republican.

Mace has way more integrity than Bricker.

There are any number of posters who used to be Republicans, but who’ve since left the party. If they’re left with the likes of Bricker as their most honorable, it’s not a positive reflection of his character by any stretch.

Can you give an example of his lying? His honesty is not really my fight (not that I question it for a second), but charges of this kind are thrown around on these boards too loosely too often. And they rarely pan out, resulting in the person hurling the charge looking like an ass. I’m sure that’s not the case with you, of course, so, let’s see these lies from Bricker that you allege.

He pretends not to understand comments and bats his eyes. That’s a lie.

Sort of like you’re doing, when you pretend you actually want a cite.

In any case, this whole thread is a lie: Well-intentioned ideas that won't work in real life: green grocer liberalism - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go back to talking to people smarter than you, you bigoted piece of shit.

As I expected. When you say “lie”, you don’t mean “lie” like the rest of the world uses the word. You disagree with Bricker, he frustrates you, so you revert to your lame-ass ad hominem bag of tricks. Nothing new. Just wanted to show you for what you are.

Thanks for being so obliging.

No I mean lie as in his initial presentation of the thread was dishonest.

Like you lie when you say that you have an intelligent reason to be against same sex marriage.

I understand why you defend Bricker. He’s by far the best of your ilk. He must seem like a God to someone of your limited capacity.

See, you’re not using “lie” like the rest of the world. A lie is not when you disagree with what someone says. A lie is when someone knowingly speaks something that they know to be untrue. So, I repeat my request for a cite. Now, I know you’ll try to address this sloppily, because otherwise you’ll be able to be pinned down as being full of shit. Heavens! So, I’ll have to ask you for the particular thing Bricker stated that was:

  1. untrue, and
  2. he knew to be untrue

I’ll wait.

Here Bricker admits that he didn’t honestly post the OP in that thread. In any case, I appreciate the opportunity to explain something to you that you already know, but are too much of a piece of shit to admit to.

Domo.

Perfect. So, you backpedal from he “lied” to he wasn’t posting “honestly”, meaning that he didn’t offer the other side of the debate for you. Newsflash, ChuckleHead, that does NOT translate to him being dishonest. And you chose a post in which he clearly says he’s being 100% truthful:

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Nothing I have said here is anything I don’t believe.
[/QUOTE]

Good job. You’ve shown yourself to be either ignorant of what a lie is or to be totally full of shit*. Though the last part comes as zero surprise.

*Very possibly, both.
Aside: Snicker. Why is it that those who most cavalierly hurl accusations of lying are the most full of shit? Kinda funny, in a way.

I don’t doubt that you don’t take what Bricker said for a lie. Because you aren’t very smart.

I’ll leave it up to the peanut gallery as to whether Bricker’s actions in that thread count as lying.

It is not a side effect, it is the whole point and you know it, liar.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/php/galleries/image.php/760/2/2.jpg

I am calling a liar anyone who claims to believe that any of this shit – voter-roll purges, voter-ID laws, caging-lists – has any real purpose other than Dem vote-suppression. I deny you do believe it. This is not a matter of respecting honest disagreement, because there is none. That is what this Pitting is about. Can I state that any more plainly?