Possibly. But, and I don’t want to seem like I’m harping on this, if he did NOT do that in that one particular thread, his failure to do so could not logically be used as evidence that he did or did not sufficiently condemn the Catholic church’s actions in that particular case.
This is why I find Bricker to be so irritating and useless. But let’s be thankful he spends his efforts at SDMB instead of sabotaging the real world like his hero Karl Rove does. Yet his deflections remind one of Rove: recall that Rove (or someone he mentored) probably masterminded the forgeries that made Bush’s malingering story about Dan Rather instead of GWB.
What’s sad is that Bricker’s posts show evidence that, unlike that of SDMB’s other right-wing blowhards, his intelligence isn’t completely gone. Once upon a time he might have been a sincere conservative intellectual. Now he seems like a bitter old partisan jumping from one idiocy to the next.
Sure, OK.
But if that did happen, and I came in to the thread to point out I never saw the thread, and was unaware of the issue, I agree. But it also seems to me the thread’s proponents could say, “Well, you’re here now. What do you have to say about the issue?”
And when *that *blows up in his face, there’s the old standby, one he’s used in this very thread, that we know we’d do the same thing if we had the opportunity (or the intelligence to think of it ourselves), so aren’t we ashamed of ourselves for being such imaginary hypocrites. It gets more than sad after awhile.
If you came into what thread? That thread itself?
Let’s extend the analogy: there’s a catholic scandal. There’s a thread about it, you don’t post at all in that thread. A while later there’s a very similar scandal with the guilty party being some organization that you are generally opposed to. You post in that thread lambasting that organization. Someone else says “ahh, but we know that you did not lambast the catholic church in that previous thread, lol ur a hypocrite”. That person is WRONG to do that, they have no evidence to make that claim. At that point, they could, I suppose, ask you for your opinion of the previous scandal, which is better than just outright accusing you of hypocrisy, but I think doing so is still pointless and even counterproductive for various reasons:
(1) It’s a bizarre imposition
(2) It makes the thread suddenly not about this new scandal, nor even about the difference between the new scandal the previous scandal, but suddenly all about whether Bricker happens to be a hypocrite. Ie, it’s a distraction
(3) It implicitly assumes that the two scandals are SO similar that any difference in reaction to them must be due to hypocrisy. Which, given the vagaries of human behavior, is something that is actually fairly extraordinarily unlikely. If the people in that thread believe that those two scandals are so similar that they can be used as a hypocrisy litmus test, then it’s up to them to so demonstrate
(4) And even if they pass all those hurdles, and they DO demonstrate that you’re a hypocrite, well, so what? I think Karl Rove is a big douchey hypocrite, but he’s also a very smart and knowledgeable person, and if he came into this thread and started making substantive arguments about voter ID, I think it would behoove us to actual rebut his arguments on substance, rather than just saying “wait, but he’s a hypocrite, we win”.
So what?
So YOU placed your lack of hypocrisy into play as evidence of your good faith:
You bring up a worthy point: good faith. We see the Republicans in a full court press, with an array of legislative initiatives that run the gamut from petty to repulsive, a clear agenda to use legislative power to secure undeserved electoral victory. Of all these…curbing early voting, Sunday voting, making voter registration drives more difficult… voter id is likely the least offensive. Its a shit sandwich as well, but it has a dab of mayonnaise and some wilted lettuce.
Good faith, yes, I think that is the very core of the issue, and I commend friend Bricker for bringing it to our attention. How might we best judge the good faith of the Republican Party when it comes to such issues as voting rights? What respect have they demonstrated when it comes to voter equality?
It does no good to demand respect for the law when the laws are passed by hyenas.
How does any of what I said have anything to do with lack of hypocrisy? In what universe does saying “I would act differently if the situations were reversed” have anything to do with hypocrisy or the lack thereof?
Your position in this thread is “here’s a situation, here’s my position”. I said “if the situations were reversed, I would have a different position”. That’s not saying I’m not a hypocrite. Nor is it saying you ARE a hypocrite. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it, until you bring it into it.
generally speaking, the TIME it takes for people to comply with changes in paperwork requirements has an inverse relationship to INCOME LEVEL. if you make a change just before the election, it is a safe bet that the result will be less poor people voting. in voting districts with large urban populations, the poor people tend to be heavily minority voters who vote strongly Democratic.
it is therefore perfectly reasonable to impute a tactical motive to counties and states with Repub-controlled election boards who make such changes.
So your only objection is the timing? An ID requirement passed two years ago, but only put into effect now, is OK?
How do we really know what he doesn’t do in the real world?
The world does not hearken to your call.
Because a snapshot in time a year prior to the actual event is a definitive reality.
I, on the other hand, have great faith in the GOP’s ability and talent to do and say multiples series of stupid things in the next twelve months. It’s pretty much their core competency nowadays.
So – do you have a prediction for the 2014 midterms? Will the GOP increase their seats in the House? In the Senate? Or will they lose seats?
I predict a gain of at least two seats in the Senate for the GOP, and no net loss in the House.
You?
I found this interesting. That oh-so-horrible mandatory ID law that Texas passed sure had an effect on our last elections.
Read more: Voter turnout in Texas nearly doubles under new ID law | The Daily Caller
Yep, really suppressed the voters, it did.
Obamacare.gov is what we call an unforced error. There was even an opportunity for Obama to look like he was bending over backwards AGAIN by petting the Repu8blicans push off the Obamacare rollout by the 3 or 4 months it would have taken to fix the problem (I think we now know that Obama KNEW that the site was going to be a disaster).
Both sides do stupid things. Its like they are competing for first palce in a foot shooting contest. Sure the Republicans have a fully automatic 10 gauge shotgun but the don’t seem to mind the pain quite as much.
Missed that part, did you?
And, of course, the question had to do with issues of voter equality, not a prospective on how those voters would choose. It appears you found that question uncomfortable, and chose to answer a question more to your liking.
Now, have you an argument to make or would you prefer to play the rhetorical equivalent of dodgeball?
Tried and failed is the same thing as not trying? Really? I can get mileage out of that!
“Sure, honey, I tried to bone your sister, but she said 'No” so I’m not guilty!"
Yeah. That’ll work.
Yes. In fact, I’ll make you a deal. Republicans can win the elections, and you’ll get to keep announcing how horribly mean and unfair they are to the voters.
How about I’ll make you a deal… we’ll come up with an actual fair and just voting system, including no gerrymandering, and we’ll actually let the will of the people decide who should be in congress. If Obamacare is such a catastrophe that 55% of people vote Republican next election, and that results in Republicans having a 55-45 majority in the house and gains in the senate and possibly the presidency, I won’t complain at all.