Bricker believes in the Rule of the Interpretation of the Law Through Whatever Twisted Partisan Knothole He Can Pull It.
Oh, I see where I made my mistake! I said “no problems”, so naturally Bricker, bless his excruciatingly literal minded heart, thought I meant no problems of any kind, whereas what I actually meant was no problems directly related to voter fraud or id issues! What a hilarious, sit-com worthy mix-up!
No, dear heart, I was referring only to voter id and voter fraud issues, not other problems typically associated with Minnesota like weather, excessive politeness and velociraptor attacks. Should have made that clear! Boy, is my face red!
Excellent! Then, of course, you have evidence! Bring.
I understand why you’d lie and say that, because your views are so repugnant on their face.
But I’m not saying I should be king. I’m saying that you and the others that rah-rah making it harder for people to vote, so you can have electoral advantage, are utter pieces of shit. You’re a bad person and you should feel bad. 
It might be different if you were stupid enough to believe the hype, like say, Clothahump or Magiver, but you’re smart enough to know better. So shame on you for flailing around trying to defend vile partisan skulduggery.
I’m not saying these laws are illegal, I’m saying they’re immoral and they should be changed. I’d like it if they were illegal, but that’s up to the ideologues on the SC to decide.
You’re confusing him. He literally does not know the difference.
And the wicked make laws to prohibit problems that haven’t been observed to exist.
If we are to be ruthlessly fair, that is not proven. Nor can it be.
So long as he can keep the argument confined to his comfort zone, the value of voter id, his case is not absurd. It is certainly arguable that voter id has some merit.
Remember, as originally proposed by the perfidious ALEC, this was an altogether clever plan, clever more for its modesty than for anything else. It was not designed to produce landslides and mandates, it was designed to trim away just enough votes to accomplish its narrow goals, to win the close ones. The popularity of voter id gave it cover, all that needed to be done was that the law be enacted swiftly so that it was firmly in place before the next election, any later might well be too late.
The plot was malign, sordid, and unprincipled, but modest. Most likely, it would have worked if the batshit baboons hadn’t gone wild, and tipped their hand. I, myself, would welcome a properly pursued program of voter id and voter registration! to expand the voting rolls, the more the better, says I!
Naturally, it has not escaped my notice that such an expansion would disfavor the Republican Party, but that plays no part in my idealistic commitment. None that anyone can prove, at any rate.
Just as hyper-capitalists believe that corporations would betray their fiduciary duty were they not to take all measures, however repugnant, to maximize their profits, so GOP hyper-partisans believe that all non-prosecutable steps, however nasty, should be taken to win elections. Bricker is on record as believing Karl Rove is a shiny paragon of what’s best about the Republican Party.
Note my use of “non-prosecutable” rather than “legal.” In the travesty which America’s “legal” system has become, not only is morality irrelevant, but so is strict legality. Lawyers and Republicans are happy to condone or commit crimes when, e.g. due to evidence obfuscation or prosecutor bias, no prosecution can occur.
“If a crime is committed in the forest, and no prosecutor will find evidence, was a crime really committed?” No, say partisans of a certain ilk.
No, I accept the Supreme Court’s ruling. Or, for an issue of state law, the highest court in that state.
You keep trying to make that accusation fit, but it cannot, because you can’t point to those supposed times in which I reject the validity of the final court ruling in favor of my own desired outcome.
And you keep making the accusation that people who object to what they see as patently immoral laws are somehow arguing that they should be king. Please dispense with that nonsense.
You have not done a very good job, then, of making that distinction clear.
Here’s an early post you made. Help me understand Lobo-speak:
When you say “need,” in that sentence, you really mean what? To me, its reads as though you’re announcing a condition by which the law is either legitimate, or not.
But it’s just referring to how immoral non-universal IDSs are?
Tell me: is the question of morality a “fact?” Or an opinion?
But that’s the natural conclusion.
Seriously: what mechanism are they proposing to make laws?
I think abortion is a grave moral wrong. But since I recognize that the majority of the country does not share this view, I do not argue that abortion laws must be changed because they are immoral. Because I realize that my view of immorality is not shared by my interlocutors.
If you can simply declare that a law is immoral and thus must be changed, regardless of how many of your fellow citizens approve of the law, what are you saying except that your will trumps theirs?
Believing a law is wrong and should be remedied the through normal constitutional processes and that its supporters ought to be criticized and its enactors removed from power through the normal constitutional process has NOTHING to do with cleaving to oneself the individual authority to annul the law by fiat. That last bit is something you have created out of your own imagination and brought to every policy discussion. It’s not even a straw man or hyperbole. It’s a Big Lie.
Then I’m wrong, you are fucking stupid. Colossally fucking dipshitty. In fact, I wonder how you can function in every day life.
“You *need *to try Chipotle if you haven’t. They are a damn good burrito, for a chain.”
“You *need *to call her bro, you can’t just hook up with a friend and not say anything the next day.”
“I *need *to be there, I just want to say goodbye. I *need *that closure.”
Riddle me this, Bricktop, do those sentences get through the thick fucking wall of stupid you’ve erected to protect your craven ideology?
We are social animals conditioned by evolution and society to have fairly common ethical standards. Your parents, or your genetics have utterly failed you and produced a semblance of civility, piled atop a sneering contempt for people smaller than you. If you can’t understand playing fair, your ineptitude began at the playground.
Morality isn’t something writ in physics. It’s what we agree it is. And most people, if they really looked at your stance would find it vile. Two hundred years ago, you’d have been astonishingly progressive, but times, they change. In this society, in this time, you’re a festering asshole.
I see your point, but… I think you’re conflating two different things:
(1) always being polite and respectful and friendly and never lashing out
and
(2) making it clear that your position is a nuanced and specific one, not a broad one
I’m not saying that you’re under any obligation to always be friendly and turn the other cheek and so forth, but I think you have a tendency to state your position in a way which emphasizes the differences between your position and the majority rather than the similarities. At which point you end up in a vicious cycle, because people immediately respond with anger, at which point you respond in anger (as is only human), and the gap just gets wider.
Two responses:
(1) It’s entirely possible to say that a law is wrong, and have a thread on a message board about how that law is wrong, and have people ranting and saying that that law SHOULD be changed and that the people who supported it ARE DOUCHEBAGS, without their being an underlying subtext of “and because we all in this thread agree then hey presto, the government of the US is obligated to obey our will”. So if I entered a pro-life thread and people were saying things like “Roe vs. Wade is unAmerican and horrible, and it’s a massacre, and it should be overturned” I might argue with them why I think Roe is in fact a good idea, or perhaps why I think it’s constitutional, but I wouldn’t start it on “what, you people think you are kings or something?” just because they were using words like “should” or even “need”. That’s just a silly distraction.
(2) Any law which potentially modifies elections does NOT necessarily fit into your neat little model. For me, at least, a major theme of this debate has been whether these voter ID laws are sufficiently close to disenfranchisement/poll taxes that they should NOT simply be “well, majority rules, that’s how a democracy works”. (And note, by the way, that the supreme court ruling that by the current set of precedents these laws are not-disenfranchisement-and-not-poll-taxes doesn’t necessarily invalidate any particular argument I might be making along those lines, unless I was claiming “here is what the supreme court will rule”.)
Thank you. The idea that we are not competent to have opinions without citing appeals court justices in support of our opinions was one of the dirtiest and nastiest digressions that the Captain of All Digressions has pulled here.
We can cite other authorities, such as university constitutional scholars, or even advocacy groups. We can even cite our own beliefs, when labeled as such, without the Mikado of Right and Wrong telling us we want to be kings.
(And…we can choose not to answer pointed questions without being guilty of fleeing from the truth. His Nibs has upon many occasions partaken of this freedom.)
I’ll say it again: Bricker uses language as an obstacle to real communication. He delights in dragging a thread off-topic and into a 200 post digression. The “unable to vote” shit is just one more example.
This seems like an astoundingly odd criticism of someone participating on a debate board. Why in the world would anyone want to spend time discussing all that they agree with. That seems like a gross waste of time for all parties. But if that’s what someone likes, they’re are plenty of places to discuss things when everyone agrees. It appears to me that your premise is that the point of a debate board is to demonstrate how much a group of people are in agreement. That seems exceedingly odd.
Tied to this is the feeling that one should minimize his or her differences of opinions, lest they anger or outrage the majority. I must say, I’m quite surprised to see this coming from you. If someone sees disagreement on a debate board about a particular position, and responds with anger, would you say the problem is with the writer or the reader?
I’m surprised Bricker is being attacked on this particular point. People argue vehemently for a position—which is great—but when Bricker says that he disagrees just as strongly and asks his interlocutor how he or she proposes they moderate their policy disagreement, Bricker is 100% fine with letting it be handled by the mechanisms in place. For some, they seem to think this is somehow insufficient. And for those who do, it is fair to say that for them to want to bypass the mechanisms in place and just want what they want—well, by golly, because they feel SO strongly about it—they are, in fact, demonstrating the thinking of kings.
See, Bricker? You’re not alone against the “horde.”
Going back to the OP, 5100+ posts later, someone finally encapsulated a very accurate precis of BG’s entire problem:
http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2014-05-29-29a6b960_large.jpg