I don’t think I can rebut a claim about what would happen in a hypothetical scenario that is buttressed by your lack of doubt.
That’s about the level of citation I have come to expect, yes.
That’s not the quote.
And Michael Palin is right. An argument must begin with an assertion, one supported by citation to fact. Such an argument cannot be dismissed by gainsay alone.
But when the assertion is gratuitous – unsupported – then it’s outside Palin’s character’s rule, and may indeed be dismissed by simple denial.
Thank you very much.
In other words, I should have used “rabid grizzly bear” in my analogy rather than “rabid unicorn”?
I’ve published papers in scientific journals and know how to write precisely. I thought here we’re casual, and adult enough to understand hyperbole.
Don’t sweat it - Bricker resorts to disingenuous nitpicks when he’s losing.
Using hyperbole while debating with Bricker is literally the worst idea in the history of mankind.
Please be advised that not every one of my posts are directed to you. No rebuttal on your part is actually called for. However, if you are so compelled, you might best approach the question by listing the many, many times that Republicans have supported voter registration drives and/or initiatives to make voting easier, other than outreach efforts to gated communities.
It’s not possible for him to recognize he’s losing if he’s procedurally correct.
That would make him mentally ill, I figure. I think he’s just ideologically blinkered and prone to convenient bouts of doublethink, myself. I vaguely suspect his Catholic upbringing, especially in light of his recent “unintended secondary result” comment, i.e. if the nominal goal is to reduce voter fraud, it’s okay if the “unintended secondary result” is poor minorities voting less. Isn’t that how Catholics rationalize abortion sometimes, i.e. do something that may be unnecessary but borderline justifiable and if it happens to also terminate a pregnancy, well… what God doesn’t know won’t hurt him.
I don’t think that’s the issue. He’s fairly clear on what his basic beliefs are even if he’s unwilling to just flat out state them.
I suspect he believe that strictly holding to the legal system will in the long run product the greater good and he’s willing to accept that as the governing entity even over the short term demands of his religious affiliation.
What I think he believes but really isn’t willing to cough up is that anyone that can’t overcome the barriers currently being put up to voter registration doesn’t deserve to vote. If he could do it, ALL of them can regardless of circumstance.
I think he realizes that if he actually admitted that, he’d be done in the discussion.
Two bits says they will post, they will bluster, and they will threaten. What they won’t do is show up.
Is Bricker still around? It might be amusing to get his take on this. Democracy at its finest?
I’m sure there’s a valid neutral justification somewhere in there.
Its a hoax, guys and gals.
Forget to credit Kobal2, cub reporter…
My take is that some of the liberals represented here are fucking morons:
Serious fucking morons.
If you wanted to truly fight ignorance you’d stand in front of a mirror and punch yourselves bloody.
We’re talking about septimus - he’d lose.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, it was troll-hoaxing, and we can all be glad. But is your suggestion based on the notion that lefties were the only people who bought it? True enough, it appears that lefties were quick to renounce, denounce, and condemn. How about tighty righty reaction? The relative silence, that was because they were too smart to believe it? That the premise you are hoping to sell here?
Because there is another explanation, you know.
Does it matter if it was true? People BELIEVED it, and I thought that was all that matters.
So quickly forgotten, the voodoo example.
Or deliberately not recalling.
Stay away from mirrors.